Ludlow v. Flowers Foods, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |} DANIEL LUDLOW, individually and on Case No.: 18cv1190-JO-JLB 2 behalf of others similarly situated; and WILLIAM LANCASTER, individually ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF 13 || and on behalf of others similarly situated, DANIEL LUDLOW’S MOTION FOR 14 Plaintiffs, PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT 15 || Vv. 16 || FLOWERS FOODS, INC., a Georgia 7 corporation; FLOWERS BAKERIES, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company; 18 || and FLOWERS FINANCE, LLC, a 19 limited liability company, Defendants. 20 21 Plaintiff Daniel Ludlow filed a motion for partial summary judgment tha 22 ||Defendants cannot satisfy Prong B of the ABC Test. Dkt. 359. The Court held ora 23 || argument on the motion on July 19, 2023. For the reasons stated on the record during th 24 argument, the Court DENIES the motion [Dkt. 359]. 25 In connection with the briefing, Defendants filed an unopposed motion to sea 26 ||excerpts of an expert declaration (Exhibit 10) containing internal sales data, financia 27 ||information, accounting summaries, and valuation data. Dkt. 392. The Court finds tha 28 ||Defendants have met their burden to establish such material constitutes confidentia

1 business information. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (Oth 2 ||Cir. 2006) (a party must articulate a “compelling reason” to seal judicial records and 3 ||documents); Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser LLC, 2022 WL 847309, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4 ||22, 2022) (finding compelling reasons to seal internal business records and confidential 5 business information). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to seal [Dkt. 6 7 Plaintiff also filed an unopposed motion to seal excerpts of deposition transcripts 8 ||(Exhibits 22-23) on the grounds that the excerpts contained material designated by 9 ||Defendants as “CONFIDENTIAL” under the Protective Order. Dkt. 395. Because 10 || Plaintiff has not identified any specific harm that would arise from the disclosure, the Court 11 || finds Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to set forth a compelling reason to justify 12 ||sealing. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (the court begins with “a strong presumption of 13 || access [as] the starting point”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to seal 14 || [Dkt. 395]. 15 IT ISSO ORDERED. 16 i7||paea: 19/22 18

hited States District Judge

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28