MARTISHA ANN MUNOZ, et al., Case No. 19-cv-03768-HSG
Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS COMPANY, Re: Dkt. No. 128 Defendant. Pending before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to seal documents related to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. See Dkt. No. 128. For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). Because the motion to seal relates to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. The current motion seeks to seal portions of documents that relate to Defendant’s leased vehicle sales tax practices, the precise issue at the heart of this case. Defendant argues that the excerpts contain “confidential and proprietary GEICO information concerning its internal methodology, processes and procedures for calculating leased vehicle sales tax payments including, but not limited to, the proprietary tools GEICO developed to calculate such payments.” Dkt. No. 128 at 3. Defendant further argues that public release of this information would harm it “because competitors could use this information to implement similar systems to process their claims.” Dkt. No. 128-2 (Gallimore Decl.) at 1. Despite Defendant’s assertions, for the majority of the requested redactions, the Court does not see detailed, proprietary methodologies at risk of being used by competitors to Defendant’s Defendant pays sales tax on leased vehicle total loss claims—the crux of Plaintiffs’ allegations in this case. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 128-7 (Defendant’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories) at 8. With two limited exceptions, Defendant seeks to seal high-level information that does not warrant sealing to prevent competitors from gaining an advantage, given the strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. See In re Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (directing the district court to seal information “which gives [the defendant] an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it,” such as the defendant’s pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms). The two exceptions are pages 29-32 of the Kochis Declaration, Exhibit F, and the Persinger Declaration, Exhibit S. These pages describe the components of Defendant’s sales tax refund calculator and how the tool works, and could be used by competitors. The Court finds there is compelling reason to seal these pages, but not the rest of the requested redactions. Docket No. Public / Document Portion(s) Sought to Ruling (Sealed) be Sealed Dkt. No. 129 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 98 / (Dkt. Defendant’s • Page 5, Lines 7-16 DENIED No. 128-5) Opposition to The general Plaintiffs’ Motion for information about Class Certification Defendant’s leased vehicle sales tax practices is critical to the public’s understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case, and Defendant has not established a compelling reason that overrides this interest or narrowly tailored the requested redactions. Dkt. No. 98-8 / (Dkt. Exhibit E to the Decl. • Page 8, Lines 23- DENIED No. 128-7) of Kymberly Kochis 26 The general in Support of information about Defendant’s Defendant’s leased Opposition vehicle sales tax the public’s understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case, and Defendant has not established a compelling reason that overrides this interest or narrowly tailored the requested redactions. Dkt. No. 98-9 / (Dkt. Exhibit F to the Decl. • Page 10, Lines 2- GRANTED IN No. 128-9) of Kymberly Kochis 18 PART in Support of • Pages 20-25 The following Defendant’s • Pages 29-32 contains confidential Opposition • Page 36, Lines 1-8 proprietary business information, including details on how a proprietary business tool works. • Pages 29-32 Dkt. No. 98-10 / (Dkt. Exhibit G to the Decl. • Page 9, Lines 11- DENIED No. 128-11) of Kymberly Kochis 14 The general in Support of • Page 10, Line 26 information about Defendant’s through Page 11, Defendant’s leased Opposition Line 3 vehicle sales tax practices is critical to the public’s understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case, and Defendant has not established a compelling reason that overrides this interest or narrowly tailored the requested redactions. Dkt. No. 91 / (Dkt. Plaintiffs’ Motion for • Page 7, Lines 5-8 DENIED No. 128-13) Class Certification The general information about Defendant’s leased vehicle sales tax practices is critical to the public’s understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations Defendant has not established a compelling reason that overrides this interest or narrowly tailored the requested redactions. Dkt. No. 91-1 / (Dkt. Exhibit E to the Decl. • Page 10, Lines 2- DENIED No. 128-15) of Annick Persinger 18 The general in Support of information about Plaintiffs’ Motion for Defendant’s leased Class Certification vehicle sales tax practices is critical to the public’s understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
MARTISHA ANN MUNOZ, et al., Case No. 19-cv-03768-HSG
Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS COMPANY, Re: Dkt. No. 128 Defendant. Pending before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to seal documents related to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. See Dkt. No. 128. For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). Because the motion to seal relates to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, which is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. The current motion seeks to seal portions of documents that relate to Defendant’s leased vehicle sales tax practices, the precise issue at the heart of this case. Defendant argues that the excerpts contain “confidential and proprietary GEICO information concerning its internal methodology, processes and procedures for calculating leased vehicle sales tax payments including, but not limited to, the proprietary tools GEICO developed to calculate such payments.” Dkt. No. 128 at 3. Defendant further argues that public release of this information would harm it “because competitors could use this information to implement similar systems to process their claims.” Dkt. No. 128-2 (Gallimore Decl.) at 1. Despite Defendant’s assertions, for the majority of the requested redactions, the Court does not see detailed, proprietary methodologies at risk of being used by competitors to Defendant’s Defendant pays sales tax on leased vehicle total loss claims—the crux of Plaintiffs’ allegations in this case. See, e.g., Dkt. No. 128-7 (Defendant’s Responses and Objections to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories) at 8. With two limited exceptions, Defendant seeks to seal high-level information that does not warrant sealing to prevent competitors from gaining an advantage, given the strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. See In re Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (directing the district court to seal information “which gives [the defendant] an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it,” such as the defendant’s pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms). The two exceptions are pages 29-32 of the Kochis Declaration, Exhibit F, and the Persinger Declaration, Exhibit S. These pages describe the components of Defendant’s sales tax refund calculator and how the tool works, and could be used by competitors. The Court finds there is compelling reason to seal these pages, but not the rest of the requested redactions. Docket No. Public / Document Portion(s) Sought to Ruling (Sealed) be Sealed Dkt. No. 129 – GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART Dkt. No. 98 / (Dkt. Defendant’s • Page 5, Lines 7-16 DENIED No. 128-5) Opposition to The general Plaintiffs’ Motion for information about Class Certification Defendant’s leased vehicle sales tax practices is critical to the public’s understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case, and Defendant has not established a compelling reason that overrides this interest or narrowly tailored the requested redactions. Dkt. No. 98-8 / (Dkt. Exhibit E to the Decl. • Page 8, Lines 23- DENIED No. 128-7) of Kymberly Kochis 26 The general in Support of information about Defendant’s Defendant’s leased Opposition vehicle sales tax the public’s understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case, and Defendant has not established a compelling reason that overrides this interest or narrowly tailored the requested redactions. Dkt. No. 98-9 / (Dkt. Exhibit F to the Decl. • Page 10, Lines 2- GRANTED IN No. 128-9) of Kymberly Kochis 18 PART in Support of • Pages 20-25 The following Defendant’s • Pages 29-32 contains confidential Opposition • Page 36, Lines 1-8 proprietary business information, including details on how a proprietary business tool works. • Pages 29-32 Dkt. No. 98-10 / (Dkt. Exhibit G to the Decl. • Page 9, Lines 11- DENIED No. 128-11) of Kymberly Kochis 14 The general in Support of • Page 10, Line 26 information about Defendant’s through Page 11, Defendant’s leased Opposition Line 3 vehicle sales tax practices is critical to the public’s understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case, and Defendant has not established a compelling reason that overrides this interest or narrowly tailored the requested redactions. Dkt. No. 91 / (Dkt. Plaintiffs’ Motion for • Page 7, Lines 5-8 DENIED No. 128-13) Class Certification The general information about Defendant’s leased vehicle sales tax practices is critical to the public’s understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations Defendant has not established a compelling reason that overrides this interest or narrowly tailored the requested redactions. Dkt. No. 91-1 / (Dkt. Exhibit E to the Decl. • Page 10, Lines 2- DENIED No. 128-15) of Annick Persinger 18 The general in Support of information about Plaintiffs’ Motion for Defendant’s leased Class Certification vehicle sales tax practices is critical to the public’s understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case, and Defendant has not established a compelling reason that overrides this interest or narrowly tailored the requested redactions. Dkt. No. 91-1 / (Dkt. Exhibit F to the Decl. • Page 9, Lines 11- DENIED No. 128-17) of Annick Persinger 14 The general in Support of • Page 10, Line 26 information about Plaintiffs’ Motion for through Page 11, Defendant’s leased Class Certification Line 3 vehicle sales tax practices is critical to the public’s understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations and this case, and Defendant has not established a compelling reason that overrides this interest or narrowly tailored the requested redactions. Dkt. No. 121 / (Dkt. Plaintiffs’ Updated • Page 10, Lines 23- DENIED No. 128-19) Corrected Reply in 26 (portions of The general Support of Plaintiffs’ footnote 5) information about Motion for Class • Page 12, Lines 23- Defendant’s leased Certification 24 (portions of vehicle sales tax footnote 6) practices is critical to 1 understanding of Plaintiffs’ allegations 2 and this case, and Defendant has not 3 established a compelling reason 4 that overrides this 5 interest or narrowly tailored the requested 6 redactions. Dkt. No. 102-1 /(Dkt. | Exhibit S to the e Pages 21-25 GRANTED IN 7 No. 128-21) Supplemental Decl. of | * Pages 29-32 PART Annick Persinger in The following 8 Support of Plaintiffs’ contains confidential 9 Motion for Class proprietary business Certification information, 10 including details on how a proprietary 11 business tool works. e Pages 29-32 a (12 13. Hl. CONCLUSION 4 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the administrative motion to file S 5 under seal, Dkt. No. 128. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file revised public versions of all
6 documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied, in whole or in part, within seven days
of this order. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the
8 administrative motions are granted will remain under seal.
Dated: 3/31/2022
71 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28