1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE: NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS Case No. 25-cv-01284-AMO RAVA LITIGATION 8 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 DENYING IN PART OMNIBUS SEALING MOTION 10 Re: Dkt. No. 92 11
12 13 Before the Court is the parties’ omnibus sealing motion. Dkt. No. 92.1 Having read the 14 parties’ motion and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good 15 cause appearing, the Court rules as follows. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, the party seeking to file a document or portions of it 18 under seal must explain “(i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the 19 injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is 20 not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). The request must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the 21 sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3). A party seeking to seal records must provide 22 “compelling reasons” to overcome the “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City 23 & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); see Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 24 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). The standard derives from the “common law 25 right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 26 documents.’ ” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 27 1 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal 2 judicial records must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that 3 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 4 public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations 5 omitted). The party must make a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will 6 result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 7 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). It is in the “sound discretion of the trial court” to determine 8 what constitutes a “compelling reason” for sealing a court document. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 9 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). Compelling 10 reasons justifying sealing court records generally exist when such “court files might . . . become a 11 vehicle for improper purposes” such as “releas[ing] trade secrets,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, 12 or “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” Ctr. for 13 Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097; see In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) 14 (sealing trade secret information about “the pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum 15 payment terms” in the parties’ licensing agreement). Compelling reasons must exist to seal 16 records attached to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. 17 for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 Nuna classifies the materials it seeks to seal into three categories: (1) customer feedback 20 regarding the car seat that Plaintiffs allege suffered from a defect and details regarding customer 21 service systems used by Nuna, (2) customer feedback that either (a) pertains to other Nuna 22 products not at issue in this case or (b) pertains to the car seat at issue but postdates Plaintiffs’ 23 most recent purchase, and (3) personal identifying information of Nuna customers. The Court 24 discusses each category in turn. 25 A. Customer Feedback Pertaining to Car Seat at Issue / Customer Service Systems 26 Nuna requests that the Court seal “confidential customer feedback regarding the Rava 27 model Plaintiffs allege was defective, including verbatim quotes, and details regarding the exact 1 sensitive business information that competitors “can and will use to gain an advantage over Nuna 2 in a very competitive marketplace.” Dkt. No. 92 at 3. Plaintiffs oppose this request. Id. at 8. 3 As pertains the customer feedback, Plaintiffs contend that the customer complaints are not 4 confidential because they are known by third parties. Id. (citing Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard 5 Co., No. 5:10-CV-02176-LHK, 2012 WL 892427, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2012) (holding 6 customer complaints are “not confidential, ‘because they are known by third parties—the 7 customers reporting the complaints.’ ”). Nuna attempts to differentiate the instant case from 8 Kowalsky by arguing that the document at issue in Kowalsky was “feedback from a single 9 customer.” Dkt. No. 92 at 16. This is a distinction without a difference. It remains that customer 10 complaints are not confidential as they are known by the customers who complained. See 11 Kowalsky, 2012 WL 892427, at *2. Further, Nuna contends that the disclosure of the customer 12 complaints regarding the alleged defect would harm its competitive standing. Dkt. No. 92 at 3-4. 13 But the alleged defect is the subject of a public recall. Id. at 9. Thus, competitors are already 14 aware of the subject of the customers’ complaints, and Nuna has failed to establish how their 15 disclosure would specifically harm its competitive standing. See Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11 16 (requiring a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 17 information is disclosed). Regarding the customer service department systems used by Nuna, 18 Nuna identifies no harm it would suffer were this information made public. See generally Dkt. 19 No. 92-1. The declaration accompanying the sealing motion only mentions potential harm from 20 the customer complaints, id. ¶ 9 (“The customer feedback data recited at length in the FACC and 21 referenced in the motion to dismiss briefing is sensitive business information that is not shared 22 publicly and that competitors can and will use to gain an advantage over Nuna in a very 23 competitive marketplace.”), but fails to mention potential harms related to the customer service 24 department systems. For these reasons, and in light of the “strong presumption in favor of access” 25 to court filings, Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, the Court DENIES Nuna’s request to seal the 26 customer feedback pertaining to the car seat at issue and the customer service systems used by 27 Nuna. 1 B. Other Customer Feedback 2 Nuna contends that the category two documents are subject to the lower “good cause” 3 standard, as opposed to the “compelling reasons” standard, because these documents are 4 “irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.” Dkt. No. 92 at 4. Plaintiffs disagree. Id. at 10. Under either 5 standard, the Court finds these materials are not sealable for the same reasons identified above, 6 namely that the customer complaints are not confidential and that Nuna has failed to identify a 7 specific harm that would result from the disclosure of either the customer complaints or the 8 customer service department systems. See Section II(A). Accordingly, there is neither good cause 9 nor compelling reasons to seal this information. The Court DENIES Nuna’s request to seal this 10 material. 11 C. Nuna Customers’ Identifying Information 12 Last, Nuna requests that the Court seal its customers’ personal identifying information. 13 Dkt. No. 92 at 5-6. Plaintiffs do not object to this request. Id. Compelling reasons exist to seal 14 customers’ personal identifying information. See Activision Publ’g, Inc. v. EngineOwning UG, 15 No. CV 2:22-CV-00051-MWF (JCX), 2023 WL 2347134, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 IN RE: NUNA BABY ESSENTIALS Case No. 25-cv-01284-AMO RAVA LITIGATION 8 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 DENYING IN PART OMNIBUS SEALING MOTION 10 Re: Dkt. No. 92 11
12 13 Before the Court is the parties’ omnibus sealing motion. Dkt. No. 92.1 Having read the 14 parties’ motion and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good 15 cause appearing, the Court rules as follows. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, the party seeking to file a document or portions of it 18 under seal must explain “(i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the 19 injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is 20 not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). The request must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the 21 sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3). A party seeking to seal records must provide 22 “compelling reasons” to overcome the “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City 23 & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); see Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 24 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). The standard derives from the “common law 25 right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 26 documents.’ ” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting 27 1 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal 2 judicial records must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that 3 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 4 public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations 5 omitted). The party must make a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will 6 result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 7 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). It is in the “sound discretion of the trial court” to determine 8 what constitutes a “compelling reason” for sealing a court document. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 9 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). Compelling 10 reasons justifying sealing court records generally exist when such “court files might . . . become a 11 vehicle for improper purposes” such as “releas[ing] trade secrets,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, 12 or “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing,” Ctr. for 13 Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097; see In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) 14 (sealing trade secret information about “the pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum 15 payment terms” in the parties’ licensing agreement). Compelling reasons must exist to seal 16 records attached to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. 17 for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 Nuna classifies the materials it seeks to seal into three categories: (1) customer feedback 20 regarding the car seat that Plaintiffs allege suffered from a defect and details regarding customer 21 service systems used by Nuna, (2) customer feedback that either (a) pertains to other Nuna 22 products not at issue in this case or (b) pertains to the car seat at issue but postdates Plaintiffs’ 23 most recent purchase, and (3) personal identifying information of Nuna customers. The Court 24 discusses each category in turn. 25 A. Customer Feedback Pertaining to Car Seat at Issue / Customer Service Systems 26 Nuna requests that the Court seal “confidential customer feedback regarding the Rava 27 model Plaintiffs allege was defective, including verbatim quotes, and details regarding the exact 1 sensitive business information that competitors “can and will use to gain an advantage over Nuna 2 in a very competitive marketplace.” Dkt. No. 92 at 3. Plaintiffs oppose this request. Id. at 8. 3 As pertains the customer feedback, Plaintiffs contend that the customer complaints are not 4 confidential because they are known by third parties. Id. (citing Kowalsky v. Hewlett-Packard 5 Co., No. 5:10-CV-02176-LHK, 2012 WL 892427, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2012) (holding 6 customer complaints are “not confidential, ‘because they are known by third parties—the 7 customers reporting the complaints.’ ”). Nuna attempts to differentiate the instant case from 8 Kowalsky by arguing that the document at issue in Kowalsky was “feedback from a single 9 customer.” Dkt. No. 92 at 16. This is a distinction without a difference. It remains that customer 10 complaints are not confidential as they are known by the customers who complained. See 11 Kowalsky, 2012 WL 892427, at *2. Further, Nuna contends that the disclosure of the customer 12 complaints regarding the alleged defect would harm its competitive standing. Dkt. No. 92 at 3-4. 13 But the alleged defect is the subject of a public recall. Id. at 9. Thus, competitors are already 14 aware of the subject of the customers’ complaints, and Nuna has failed to establish how their 15 disclosure would specifically harm its competitive standing. See Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11 16 (requiring a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 17 information is disclosed). Regarding the customer service department systems used by Nuna, 18 Nuna identifies no harm it would suffer were this information made public. See generally Dkt. 19 No. 92-1. The declaration accompanying the sealing motion only mentions potential harm from 20 the customer complaints, id. ¶ 9 (“The customer feedback data recited at length in the FACC and 21 referenced in the motion to dismiss briefing is sensitive business information that is not shared 22 publicly and that competitors can and will use to gain an advantage over Nuna in a very 23 competitive marketplace.”), but fails to mention potential harms related to the customer service 24 department systems. For these reasons, and in light of the “strong presumption in favor of access” 25 to court filings, Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178, the Court DENIES Nuna’s request to seal the 26 customer feedback pertaining to the car seat at issue and the customer service systems used by 27 Nuna. 1 B. Other Customer Feedback 2 Nuna contends that the category two documents are subject to the lower “good cause” 3 standard, as opposed to the “compelling reasons” standard, because these documents are 4 “irrelevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.” Dkt. No. 92 at 4. Plaintiffs disagree. Id. at 10. Under either 5 standard, the Court finds these materials are not sealable for the same reasons identified above, 6 namely that the customer complaints are not confidential and that Nuna has failed to identify a 7 specific harm that would result from the disclosure of either the customer complaints or the 8 customer service department systems. See Section II(A). Accordingly, there is neither good cause 9 nor compelling reasons to seal this information. The Court DENIES Nuna’s request to seal this 10 material. 11 C. Nuna Customers’ Identifying Information 12 Last, Nuna requests that the Court seal its customers’ personal identifying information. 13 Dkt. No. 92 at 5-6. Plaintiffs do not object to this request. Id. Compelling reasons exist to seal 14 customers’ personal identifying information. See Activision Publ’g, Inc. v. EngineOwning UG, 15 No. CV 2:22-CV-00051-MWF (JCX), 2023 WL 2347134, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023) (“The 16 Ninth Circuit has held that compelling reasons exist to keep personal information confidential to 17 protect an individual’s privacy interest and to prevent exposure to harm or identity theft.”). 18 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Nuna’s request to seal its customers’ identifying information. 19 In sum, the Court rules as follows:2 Document Dkt. Dkt. No. of Party with Full or partial Nuna’s brief Granted/ 20 Title or No. of unredacted burden to sealing sought statement of Denied description redacte version substantiate reasons for 21 d need to seal sealing version 22 Plaintiffs’ 69 68-3 Defendant Partial. Table of Category 1: DENY 23 First contents, lines 10– Confidential Amended 11; customer 24 Consolidated page and line feedback and Class Action numbers: 4:11–14, identity of 25 Complaint 4:15–5:20, 16:1– customer service 17:11, 17:15–21, systems that 26 17:26–38:22, competitors can 27 39:1–2, 44:10–11, and will use to 1 44:12, 44:13, gain an advantage 44:14–15, 44:17, over Nuna in a 2 44:19, 45:18–22, very competitive 70:11–12, 70:20– marketplace. 3 21, 71:12. 4 Partial. Page and Category 2(a): DENY line numbers: Irrelevant 5 17:12–14, 17:22– confidential 25, 60:9–61:10. customer 6 feedback regarding Nuna 7 products not subject to the 8 recall, which also post-date 9 Plaintiffs’ purchases, that 10 competitors can and will use to 11 gain an advantage over Nuna in a 12 very competitive 13 marketplace.
14 Partial. Page and Category 2(b): DENY 15 line numbers: Irrelevant 4:11–14, 4:15–5:5, confidential 16 33:22–37:17, customer 38:17–22. feedback about 17 the product at issue that post- 18 dates Plaintiffs’ purchases that 19 competitors can and will use to 20 gain an advantage over Nuna in a 21 very competitive marketplace. 22 Partial. Page and Category 3: GRANT 23 line numbers: Personal 18:17–18, identifying 24 19:16–17, information of 21:10–11, non-parties. 25 22:22–23, 23:1– 2, 23:22–23, 26 24:23, 25:6–7, 27 31:7, 31:11–12, 31:26, 33:1–2, 36:14–15, 1 60:23–24. 2 Plaintiffs’ 88 87-3 Defendant Partial. TOC, lines Category 1: DENY 3 Redline 10–11; Confidential Comparison page and line customer 4 of the numbers: 6:3–6, feedback and 5 Consolidated 6:7–7:12, 22:9–10, identity of 22:11–12, 22:12– customer service Complaint 13, 22:14–17, systems that 6 and First 22:17–18, 22:19– competitors can 7 A Co m n e s n o d li e d d a ted 2 2 0 2 , : 2 2 4 2 , : 2 2 3 1– :1 2 – 3 2 , 7, a g n a d in w an il l a u d s v e a n to ta ge 8 Class Action 24:3–9, 24:14– over Nuna in a Complaint 45:8, 45:15–16, very competitive 9 51:21–22, 51:23, marketplace. 51:24, 52, 1–2, 10 52:4, 52:6, 53:18– 23, 86:5–6, 86:15– 11 16, 87:8.
12 Partial. Page and Category 2(a): DENY line numbers: Irrelevant 13 23:28–24:2, confidential 24:10–13, 69:11– customer 14 70:12. feedback regarding Nuna 15 products not subject to the 16 recall, which also 17 post-date Plaintiffs’ 18 purchases, that competitors can 19 and will use to gain an advantage 20 over Nuna in a very competitive 21 marketplace. Partial. Page and Category 2(b): DENY 22 line numbers: 6:3– Irrelevant 6, 6:7–25, 23:3– confidential 23 24:13, 40:9–44:3, customer 45:3–8. feedback about 24 the product at issue that post- 25 dates Plaintiffs’ 26 purchases that competitors can 27 and will use to gain an advantage very competitive 1 marketplace. 2 3 4 Partial. Page and Category 3: GRANT 5 line numbers: Personal 6 25:5–6, 26:5, identifying 27:26, 29:10–11, information of 7 29:16–17, 30:10, non-parties. 31:11, 31:22–23, 8 37:22–23, 37:27, 38:14, 39:16–17, 9 41:17–18, 42:17, 42:28, 69:26. 10 Nuna’s 73 72-2 Defendant Partial. Page and Category 1: DENY Motion to line numbers: Confidential 11 Dismiss the 12:16, 12:17. customer 12 F A i m rs e t nded f id ee e d nt b i a ty c k o f a nd customer service 13 Consolidated systems that Class Action competitors can 14 Complaint and will use to 15 gain an advantage over Nuna in a 16 very competitive marketplace. 17 Partial. Page and Category 2(a): DENY line number: 7:20. Irrelevant 18 confidential customer 19 feedback regarding Nuna 20 products not subject, which 21 also post-date Plaintiffs’ 22 purchases, to the recall that 23 competitors can 24 and will use to gain an advantage 25 over Nuna in a very competitive 26 marketplace. Plaintiffs’ 76 75-3 Defendant Partial. TOC, lines Category 1: DENY 27 Opposition to 4–5, 12; Confidential Page and line customer Dismiss 1:6–7, 1:14–16, identity of 1 1:17–18, 1:20, customer service 2:10, 2:11–3:7, systems that 2 3:8–9, 3:10–11, competitors can 3:13–22, 3:26–4:6, and will use to 3 4:8–9, 5:8–10, gain an advantage 4 5:10–11, 6:22, 7:7, over Nuna in a 7:8, 7:11, 9:5–9, very competitive 5 9:11–12, 9:15, marketplace. 9:18–21, 10:5–6, 6 11:6–11, 12:7, 12:9, 12:11, 7 12:12–14:26, 14:27, 15:5–6, 8 15:7–19, 15:20– 21, 17:14–15, 9 18:14–15, 23:27– 28. 10 Partial. Page and Category 2(a): DENY line numbers: 4:1– Irrelevant 11 6. confidential customer 12 feedback 13 regarding Nuna products not 14 subject to the recall, which also 15 post-date Plaintiffs’ 16 purchases, that competitors can 17 and will use to gain an advantage 18 over Nuna in a very competitive 19 marketplace. Partial. Page and Category 2(b): DENY 20 line numbers: Irrelevant 1:17–18, 7:8, confidential 21 18:14–15. customer feedback about 22 the product at 23 issue that post- dates Plaintiffs’ 24 purchases that competitors can 25 and will use to gain an advantage 26 over Nuna in a very competitive 27 marketplace.. support of 5:21, 7:17-19, customer ! ||] the Motion to 7:19-20, 8:3, 8:5— | feedback and customer service 3 systems that competitors can 4 and will use to gain an advantage 5 over Nuna ina very competitive 6 marketplace. 7 8 Where the Court denied a sealing request, counsel SHALL file the document with revised 9 || redactions on the docket in public format no later than July 9, 2026. 10 This order disposes of docket numbers 68, 72, 75, 77, 87, and 92. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 12 || Dated: July 1, 2026
2 . □ 14 CELI MARTINEZ-ORGU I5 United States District Judge 16
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28