McBurnie v. Acceptance Now, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 22, 2023
• Docket: 3:21-cv-01429
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 SHANNON MCBURNIE, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01429-JD

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE SEALING MOTION v. 8

9 ACCEPTANCE NOW, LLC, Defendant. 10

11 A hallmark of our federal judiciary is the “strong presumption in favor of access to court 12 records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see In re 13 Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 556 F. Supp. 3d 1106, 1107 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Public access 14 maintains confidence in the fair and impartial administration of justice, and protects the integrity 15 and independence of the courts. This is why the business of the federal judiciary is done in open 16 court. 17 In limited circumstances, there may be grounds for curtailing public access. This is an 18 exception to the rule, and so a party requesting that a document or evidence be sealed from the 19 public needs to present a good reason explaining why. A particularized showing of good cause is 20 required to seal documents related to non-dispositive motions, and a compelling reason supported 21 by specific facts is needed before the Court will consider sealing records involving dispositive 22 motions such as a summary judgment motion. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 23 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006); DZ Rsrv. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 18-cv-04978-JD, 2021 WL 24 75734, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2021). 25 The sealing issue here began when plaintiffs filed a discovery dispute letter that contained 26 information from materials that defendant RAC Acceptance East, LLC (RAC) had produced and 27 designated as “confidential” pursuant to a protective order. Dkt. Nos. 50, 51. As required by 1 discovery that had been designated as confidential under the protective order. Dkt. No. 50. Civil 2 || Local Rule 79-5 requires the party that produced the documents, here RAC, to state why they 3 should be sealed, and propose ways of tailoring sealing to the narrowest possible scope. 4 RAC filed a statement in which it argued that the entire discovery dispute letter, not just 5 || the portions that plaintiffs highlighted for redaction, should be sealed. Dkt. No. 53. That is 6 || because the letter “quotes information from RAC’s profit and loss statements,” which are 7 allegedly “confidential and contain sensitive financial information.” /d. at 3. RAC offers 8 || perfunctory claims that the underlying documents contain “confidential and commercially 9 || sensitive information,” and that this information “is exactly the kind . . . that will harm a party’s 10 || competitive strategy.” Id. at 4. “Such conclusory and unsupported formulations, which for 11 example do not explain how a competitor would use the information to obtain an unfair advantage, 12 are insufficient for sealing.” DZ Rsrv., 2021 WL 75734, at *1. 13 RAC’s request to seal the entire discovery letter also violates our District’s local rules. A 14 sealing request must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79- 3 15 5(c)(3). It is clearly not necessary that the entire discovery dispute letter -- including background a 16 || information about RAC’s operations in California and the practices at issue in this lawsuit, Dkt. 3 17 || No. 51 at 1 -- be sealed. RAC’s request to seal the discovery dispute letter is denied. 18 Plaintiffs are directed to file an unredacted version of their letter, Dkt. No. 51, within seven 19 || days of this order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(g). Plaintiffs’ request for leave to file exemplar profit and loss 20 statements in connection with the underlying discovery dispute, Dkt. No. 50 at 1, is denied without 21 prejudice to renewal as circumstances warrant. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: February 22, 2023 24 25 JAMES/PONATO 26 United fftates District Judge 27 28