WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL Case No.: 19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND situated, DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO Plaintiffs, SEAL
v. (Doc. No. 128, 134, 138) FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant.
The parties have filed two motions to seal in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification: (1) Defendant Ford Motor Company’s (“Ford”) February 6, 2024 motion to seal documents attached to Plaintiffs’ December 1, 2023 Motion for Class Certification, (Doc. No. 128), and (2) Ford’s February 22, 2024 motion to seal in connection with its opposition to Plaintiffs’ class certification motion, (Doc. No. 134). Plaintiffs also filed a February 22, 2024 motion to seal in connection with its opposition to Ford’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 138). The Court must apply a different standard in analyzing the Class Certification and Summary Judgment Motions to Seal and will therefore address them separately. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the instant matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearings related to these motions set for June 6, 2024. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the motions to seal. Plaintiffs raise several claims against Ford for alleged latent defects, which cause abnormal and premature wearing and/or loosening of the suspension parts, resulting in “violent shaking,” causing drivers to lose control of the Vehicles, and having difficulty steering during their operation under normal driving conditions or speeds. (See First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Doc. No. 44.) On December 19, 2023, the parties entered into a protective order permitting the parties to designate as “CONFIDENTIAL” information that qualifies for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). (Doc. No. 79 at 2–3.) The protective order also permits the parties to designate as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” documents they, in good faith, believe contain trade secrets or other confidential research or information. (Id. at 3.) Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). The court must consider these interests and “base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)) (internal quotations omitted). A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). Unless the denial of a motion for class certification would constitute the death knell of a case, “the vast majority of []courts within this circuit” treat motions for class certification as non-dispositive motions to which the “good cause” sealing standard applies. Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 2013 WL 1435223, *1 (citing In re NCAA Student— Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litig., 2012 WL 6561088 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2012)). Compelling reasons1 for sealing information exist “when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Trade secrets “may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL Case No.: 19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND situated, DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO Plaintiffs, SEAL
v. (Doc. No. 128, 134, 138) FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant.
The parties have filed two motions to seal in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification: (1) Defendant Ford Motor Company’s (“Ford”) February 6, 2024 motion to seal documents attached to Plaintiffs’ December 1, 2023 Motion for Class Certification, (Doc. No. 128), and (2) Ford’s February 22, 2024 motion to seal in connection with its opposition to Plaintiffs’ class certification motion, (Doc. No. 134). Plaintiffs also filed a February 22, 2024 motion to seal in connection with its opposition to Ford’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 138). The Court must apply a different standard in analyzing the Class Certification and Summary Judgment Motions to Seal and will therefore address them separately. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the instant matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearings related to these motions set for June 6, 2024. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART the motions to seal. Plaintiffs raise several claims against Ford for alleged latent defects, which cause abnormal and premature wearing and/or loosening of the suspension parts, resulting in “violent shaking,” causing drivers to lose control of the Vehicles, and having difficulty steering during their operation under normal driving conditions or speeds. (See First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Doc. No. 44.) On December 19, 2023, the parties entered into a protective order permitting the parties to designate as “CONFIDENTIAL” information that qualifies for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). (Doc. No. 79 at 2–3.) The protective order also permits the parties to designate as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” documents they, in good faith, believe contain trade secrets or other confidential research or information. (Id. at 3.) Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). The court must consider these interests and “base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)) (internal quotations omitted). A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). Unless the denial of a motion for class certification would constitute the death knell of a case, “the vast majority of []courts within this circuit” treat motions for class certification as non-dispositive motions to which the “good cause” sealing standard applies. Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 2013 WL 1435223, *1 (citing In re NCAA Student— Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litig., 2012 WL 6561088 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2012)). Compelling reasons1 for sealing information exist “when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Trade secrets “may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s
1 In making the below ruling, the Court assumes that any document that meets the “compelling reasons” business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain advantage over competitions who do not know or use it.” Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b. Because trade secrets concern proprietary and sensitive business information not available to the public, sealing may be warranted where disclosure would harm a litigant’s competitive standing. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. The Ninth Circuit has explicitly recognized that compelling reasons exist for the sealing of “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms” of license agreements. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008). Denial of class certification would not constitute the “death knell” of this action. This is not a situation in which the individual plaintiffs have suffered de minimis harm.2 As Ford acknowledges, Plaintiffs allege damages of $5,000,000, in the aggregate, on individual claims. (See Doc. No. 44, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Consolidated Complaint, ¶ 12.) Given the amount at stake, they would presumably have financial incentive to pursue individual litigation even if they could not do so on behalf of a class. The Court therefore finds the underlying motion for class certification non-dispositive, and documents attached to it must only meet the “good cause” standard to be filed under seal. A. Motion to Seal, Doc. No. 128 Ford filed its Motion to Seal on February 6, 2024 and asks the Court to seal 101 documents attached to Plaintiffs’ December 1, 2023 Motion for Class Certification to protect “Ford’s confidential business information or trade secrets.” (Doc. No. 128.) The documents have been categorizes as regarding (1) Design and Development, (2) Root 2 The Court notes it previously applied the “compelling reasons” standard in ruling on a previous motion to seal in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (See Doc. No. 132.) However, the Court is persuaded by Ford’s argument that because Plaintiffs’ allegations do not constitute de minimis harm, the “good cause” standard should apply. (See Doc. No. 128 at 6–7.) The Court further notes that because Plaintiffs previously failed to comply with the Civil Case Procedures of the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, U.S. District Judge, and the law of this Circuit, by failing to support their motion with factual evidence under either standard, the Order denying Plaintiffs’ motion to seal without prejudice stands. (See Cause Analysis and Investigation, (3) Warranty, and (4) Cost and Financial Information. (Id. at 4.) Plaintiffs filed a notice non-opposition to the motion. (See Doc. No. 133.) Ford argues that public release of these categories of information would give a competitive advantage to its competitors. First, Ford claims that the “research, development, and analysis described is undertaken at great expense to Ford” and that it “would suffer competitive harm in the marketplace if this information was publicly released.” (Doc. No. 128 at 10.) The Court agrees that the details of Ford’s design and development are valuable and that Ford could suffer competitive harm if they were publicly revealed. Nevertheless, the Court also finds that some of Ford’s sealing requests are not narrowly tailored to this goal. Most notably, Ford has sought to redact any statement by Ford employees acknowledging the existence of the suspension defect. The Court finds that Ford’s concerns regarding publicly releasing engineering considerations do not constitute a compelling reason for sealing these statements. The filings in this case are full of Plaintiffs’ arguments and suggestions that Ford knew or should have known of the suspension defect. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that similar statements from Ford employees that offer only general opinions would cause competitive harm to Ford. See Philips v. Ford Motor Co., No. 14-CV-02989-LHK, 2016 WL 7374214, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2016). The Court addresses each specific document in the tables below: Design & Development Judicial Record Document Description Court’s Ruling Doc. No. 124-11, Exhibit 7; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 101387 employees. Doc. No. 124-13, Exhibit 9; Minutes from a May 23, 2001, Granted. Bates No. 97486 meeting Doc. No. 124-14, Exhibit 10; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 103746 employees. Doc. No. 124-15, Exhibit 11; Shimmy data evaluation on the Granted. Bates No. 98659 P131 Super Duty model truck Doc. No. 124-16, Exhibit 12; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 99432 employees. Doc. No. 124-18, Exhibit 14; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 98850 employees. Doc. No. 124-20, Exhibit 16; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 99648 employees. Doc. No. 124-24, Exhibit 20; Chart labeled COMPETITIVE Granted. Bates No. 107370 TGW DATA Doc. No. 124-28, Exhibit 26; Document entitled 2010MY Granted. Bates No. 101756 P473 Front Suspension Alternatives Doc. No. 124-30, Exhibit 28; PowerPoint presentation entitled Granted. Bates No. 115773 P558 Super Duty Super Fueler Impro Doc. No. 124-32, Exhibit 30; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 74018 employees. Doc. Nos. 124-37, -95, Exhibits Email exchange between Ford Granted. 45, 104; Bates No. 62578 employees. Doc. No. 124-38, Exhibit 46; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 67886 employees. Doc. No. 124-40, Exhibit 48; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 66227 employees. Doc. No. 124-42, Exhibit 50; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 66341 employees. Doc. No. 124-43, Exhibit 51; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 69298 employees. Doc. No. 124-44, Exhibit 52; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 69259 employees. Doc. No. 124-45, Exhibit 53; Report entitled P558 Small Granted. Bates No. 44438 Angle Steering Disturbances Doc. No. 124-46, Exhibit 54; PowerPoint presentation entitled Granted. Bates No. 44619 P558 SAWF Doc. No. 124-47, Exhibit 55; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 43172 employees. Doc. No. 124-48, Exhibit 56; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 42296 employees. Doc. No. 124-49, Exhibit 57; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 74507 employees. Doc. No. 124-50, Exhibit 58; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 73100 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-51, Exhibit 59; PowerPoint presentation entitled Granted. Bates No. 44598 Comments from Glen Doc. No. 124-52, Exhibit 60; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 72645 employees. Doc. No. 124-53, Exhibit 61; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 44702 employees. Doc. No. 124-54, Exhibit 62; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Doc. No. 124-55, Exhibit 63; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 74010 employees. Doc. No. 124-56, Exhibit 64; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 50722 employees. Doc. No. 124-57, Exhibit 65; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 74433 employees. Doc. No. 124-58, Exhibit 66; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 44341 employees. Doc. No. 124-59, Exhibit 67; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 44345 employees. Doc. No. 124-60, Exhibit 68; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 45539 employees. Doc. No. 124-61, Exhibit 69; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 45903 employees. Doc. No. 124-62, Exhibit 70; PowerPoint presentation entitled Granted. Bates No. 50772 P558 SAWF Doc. No. 124-63, Exhibit 71; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 74873 employees. Doc. No. 124-64, Exhibit 72; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 75656 employees. Doc. No. 124-65, Exhibit 73; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 46061 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-66, Exhibit 74; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 86842 employees. Doc. No. 124-68, Exhibit 76; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 75259 employees. Doc. No. 124-69, Exhibit 77; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 46064 employees. Doc. No. 124-70, Exhibit 78; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 78494 employees. Doc. No. 124-71, Exhibit 79; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 48354 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-72, Exhibit 80; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 49787 employees. Doc. No. 124-73, Exhibit 81; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 80607 employees. Doc. No. 124-74, Exhibit 82; Chart, entitled 040100 Frt Granted. Bates No. 30656 Suspension P558 2017 Doc. No. 124-75, Exhibit 83; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Doc. No. 124-76, Exhibit 84; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 65923 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-77, Exhibit 85; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 70110 employees. Doc. No. 124-78, Exhibit 86; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 69841 employees. Doc. No. 124-79, Exhibit 87; PowerPoint presentation entitled Granted. Bates No. 112393 Tenneco P558 Steering Damper Revie Doc. No. 124-80, Exhibit 88; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 78924 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-90, Exhibit 99; Report, entitled P558 Steering Granted. Bates No. 51606 Oscillation Root Cause Analysis Doc. No. 124-17, Exhibit 13; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 98450 employees. Doc. No. 124-19, Exhibit 15; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 100194 employees. Doc. No. 124-23, Exhibit 19; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 105214 employees. Doc. No. 124-25, Exhibit 23; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 53299 employees. Doc. No. 124-26, Exhibit 24; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 95695 employees. Doc. No. 124-36, Exhibit 43; PowerPoint presentation, Granted. Bates No. 111160–4 entitled "P558 Sustained Steering Osc Doc. No. 124-39, Exhibit 47; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 66364 employees. Doc. No. 124-81, Exhibit 89; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 108882 employees. Doc. No. 124-82, Exhibit 90; Global CCRG Concern Details Granted. Bates No. 28174 Doc. No. 124-83, Exhibit 91; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 46501–2 employees. Doc. No. 124-84, Exhibit 92; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 86228 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-85, Exhibit 93; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 55263 employees. Doc. No. 124-86, Exhibit 94; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 46321 employees. Doc. No. 124-87, Exhibit 95; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 111159 employees. Doc. No. 124-88, Exhibit 96; Document, labeled Capital Granted. Bates No. 87635 Project Process Doc. No. 124-89, Exhibit 98; Ford 6-Panel PowerPoint Granted. Bates No. 54442 presentation Doc. No. 124-91, Exhibit 100; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 87705 employees. Doc. No. 124-92, Exhibit 101; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 109047 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-94, Exhibit 103; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 55172 employees. Doc. No. 124-96, Exhibit 105; Document created by Ford Granted. Bates No. 110261 entitled "P558 Steering Oscillation Doc. No. 124-97, Exhibit 106; Document entitled Issue Title: Granted. Bates No. 111055 P558 Steering Oscillation Doc. No. 124-98, Exhibit 108; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 29297 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-99, Exhibit 109; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 46506 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-100, Exhibit 110; Document entitled 2017-19 Granted. Bates No. 94580 Super Duty Steering Oscillation Talking Doc. No. 124-102, Exhibit 118; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 55570 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-103, Exhibit 119; Document entitled "Concern DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 65722 Description" narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-105, Exhibit 122; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 56070 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-106, Exhibit 123; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 63466–7 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-107, Exhibit 124; PowerPoint presentation entitled Granted. Bates No. 112555 P558 Steering LAWF Doc. No. 124-109, Exhibit 141; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 56077 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-110, Exhibit 142; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 92616 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-111, Exhibit 143; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 103633 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-112, Exhibit 144; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 111633 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-114, Exhibit 146; Excel Datasheet entitled DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 58372 SUPERDUTY KTP PAYNTER narrowly tailor its sealing 21MY22MY_COMBINED request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-115, Exhibit 147; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 55846 employees. Doc. No. 124-116, Exhibit 148; Powerpoint presentation entitled Granted. Bates No. 55870 "P558/P708 Steering System L Doc. No. 124-117, Exhibit 149; Email exchange between Ford DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 52787 employees. narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety. Doc. No. 124-118, Exhibit 150; Excerpts of Spreadsheet of DENIED. Ford fails to Bates No. 65847 warranty claims narrowly tailor its sealing request and has identified no competitive harm or other good cause that would justify sealing this document in its entirety.
Cost & Financial Information Doc. No. 124-27, Exhibit 25; Document entitled Variable Granted. Bates No. 101864 Cost Estimate Summary Doc. No. 124-29, Exhibit 27; PowerPoint presentation entitled Granted. Bates No. 93885 P558 SLA Risks, Opportunities Doc. No. 124-33, Exhibit 31; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 93881 employees. Doc. No. 124-34, Exhibit 41; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 131435 employees. Doc. No. 124-41, Exhibit 49; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 71919 employees.
Warranty Doc. No. 124-35, Exhibit 42; PowerPoint presentation, Granted. Bates No. 63717 entitled "F250/350 4x4 Warranty Analy Doc. No. 124-93, Exhibit 102; Email exchange between Ford Granted. Bates No. 87590 employees. Doc. Nos. 124-101, 104, PowerPoint presentation entitled Granted. Exhibits 112, 121; Bates Nos. Chassis Issue: Steering Wheel 55174, 54848 Os B. Motion to Seal, Doc. No. 134 Ford filed its second Motion to Seal on February 22, 2024 and asks the Court to seal one document in full, attached as Exhibit D7 to the Declaration of Victoria C. Hargis in support of Ford’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and to partially seal discrete portions of three other documents also filed with Ford’s opposition, which quote directly from the information in Exhibit D7. (Doc. No. 134 at 4.) Specifically, Ford seeks to seal various excerpts containing response data from a New Vehicle Customer Survey (“NVCS”) conducted by a third-party vendor. (Id.) Ford argues these documents reflect and contain Ford’s confidential business information or trade secrets, and would cause substantial competitive harm to Ford if publicly released. (Id. at 4–5.) Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to the motion. Exhibit D7 and the three documents which quote in part from Exhibit D7 contain information from a survey performed by a third-party vendor which “allow[s] automotive manufacturers to gain current and comprehensive data on automotive buying trends and the reasons for purchase, satisfaction, consideration, conquest and loyalty, usage and buyer profiling.” (Declaration of William Neafsey, Doc. No. 134-1, ¶ 8.) Ford does not own this data and receives the data pursuant to a license, which Ford pays for. (Id. ¶ 9.) The Court finds good cause exists for sealing these documents because they codify proprietary business information and trade secrets that could harm Ford’s competitive standing. Thus, Ford’s motion to seal in full Exhibit D7 and seal in part (1) Ford’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification; (2) Ford’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Edward Stockton; and (3) the Report of Kristin Lennox in Support of Ford’s Opposition is Next, Plaintiffs move to seal its Opposition to Ford’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which references information designated by Ford as containing confidential and proprietary information. (Doc. No. 138.) Ford has not filed an opposition to the motion. /// A party must demonstrate “compelling reasons,” supported by “specific factual findings” to seal a document in connection with a dispositive motion. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135; Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). A “good cause” showing will not, without more, satisfy a “compelling reasons” test. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. In ruling on a motion to seal in connection with a dispositive motion, “[t]he court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret . . . and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. 1127 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135, and Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434). Plaintiffs’ motion does not comply with the Civil Case Procedures of the Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia, U.S. District Judge, nor the law of this Circuit, which require the party moving for a sealing order to make a particularized showing of compelling reasons— supported by factual evidence—that outweigh the strong presumption of access. See Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC, 334 F.R.D. 552, 586 (N.D. Cal. 2020); J. Battaglia Civ. Case Proc. § IV.3. Plaintiffs solely rely on reference to the stipulated protective order, which does not supply a legal basis to curtail the public’s access to judicial records. See In re Ferrero Litig., No. 11-CV-205 H(CAB), 2011 WL 3360443, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011) (holding that a protective order itself does not satisfy the standard required of a sealing order). Plaintiffs also fail to identify a specific harm that would be caused by the public disclosure of these documents. As such, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is DENIED. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motions to seal. (Doc. Nos. 128, 134, 138.) If the parties wish to provide supplemental briefing regarding any exhibits for which sealing is denie without prejudice, they must do so by April 1, 2024. The parties may either provid additional facts to support their request to seal exhibits in their entirety or propose targeted redactions. If the parties do not file supplemental briefing by this date, the Court shall /instruct the Clerk to docket the exhibits in accordance with this Order. The exhibits will remain lodged under seal in the interim. Dated: March 17, 2024 © ¢ Hon, Anthony J.Battaglia United States District Judge 14