Juarez v. Social Finance, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RUBEN JUAREZ, et al., Case No. 20-cv-03386-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 118 10 SOCIAL FINANCE, INC., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal. Dkt. No. 118. For 14 the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 15 I. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 17 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 18 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 19 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 20 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 21 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 22 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 23 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 24 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 25 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 26 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 27 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 1 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 2 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 3 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 4 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 5 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 6 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 7 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 8 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 9 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 10 document or portions of it under seal “must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 11 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 12 sealing entire documents . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The party must further explain the interests 13 that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is declined, and why a less restrictive 14 alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 15 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 16 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 17 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 18 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 19 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 20 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 21 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 22 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 23 II. DISCUSSION 24 Plaintiffs seek to seal an unredacted Class List that contains the names and addresses of all 25 class members to whom notice was sent. See Dkt. No. 118-2, Ex. 1. Because the Class List is not 26 associated with any dispositive motion, the Court applies the lower good cause standard. The 27 Class List contains class members’ sensitive personally identifiable information, including the 1 U.S. citizens. Moreover, this information is unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial 2 || proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is minimal. 3 The Court previously granted final approval of the parties’ settlement agreement and the case is 4 || now closed. The Court did not rely on the Class List as part of its analysis, and the parties are 5 only filing it on the docket now as required by the terms of their settlement agreement. See Dkt. 6 || No. 118 at 1. Accordingly, because the document divulges sensitive information unrelated to the 7 || public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the Court finds that there is good 8 || cause to file the documents under seal. 9 WI. CONCLUSION 10 The Court GRANTS the administrative motion to file under seal. Dkt. No. 118. Pursuant ll to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motion is 12 || granted will remain under seal. 5 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. S 14 |] Dated: 9/6/2023 Abgepered Mb □□ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. = 16 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28