1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL MENDELL, Case No. 19-cv-01227-BAS-KSC
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 14 AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, MOTION TO SEAL (ECF No. 68); INC., 15 AND Defendant. 16 (2) DENYING WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE a) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 18 SEAL (ECF No. 47); 19 b) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL (ECF No. 59); AND 20 c) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 21 SEAL (ECF No. 65).
22 23 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 On July 1, 2019, Michael Mendell filed this putative class action against American 26 Medical Response, Inc. (“AMR”) in federal court. The parties sought a stipulated 27 protective order, which Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford entered on January 10, 2020. 28 (ECF No. 30.) 1 The parties each filed several motions to file documents under seal. Mendell moved 2 to seal documents for his motion for class certification (ECF No. 47) and for his reply. 3 (ECF No. 65). AMR moved to seal documents for its opposition to the motion for class 4 certification (ECF No. 59) and for its motion to strike. (ECF Nos. 68.) The Court finds 5 the motions suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. 6 See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). 7 8 II. LEGAL STANDARD 9 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 10 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 11 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 12 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 13 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. 14 State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 15 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 16 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 17 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 18 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 19 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 20 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 21 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 22 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 23 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 24 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 25 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 26 the tangential relevance threshold, the lesser, “good cause” standard applies. Id.; see Pintos 27 v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the “good cause” 28 standard imposes a lower burden than the “compelling reasons” standard). Under either 1 standard, “an order sealing the documents must be narrowly drawn to seal only those 2 portions of the record that, upon a balancing of the relevant interests, ought to be sealed.” 3 Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No. CV 10-03738-AB (CWX), 4 2015 WL 12698301, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015) (collecting cases). 5 Under this Court’s Standing Order, the parties seeking a sealing order to provide the 6 Court with “(1) a specific description of particular documents or categories of documents 7 they need to protect; and (2) declarations showing a compelling reason or good cause 8 to protect those documents from disclosure.” Hon. Cynthia Bashant’s Standing Order 9 for Civil Cases (“Standing Order”) § 5. “The standard for filing documents under seal will 10 be strictly applied.” Id. “Any protective order must be narrowly drawn” to reflect the 11 balance between the moving party’s interests and the public’s right to access the court files, 12 and “[a]ny member of the public may challenge the sealing of any particular document.” 13 Id. “The fact that both side[s] agree to seal or that a protective order was issued at the onset 14 of the case alone is insufficient cause for sealing.” Id. 15 16 III. ANALYSIS 17 A. AMR’S Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits 1–6 to the Girolamo 18 Declaration 19 AMR moves to file under seal exhibits 1–6 to the declaration of Rebecca A. 20 Girolamo in support of AMR’s motion to strike. (Mot. to Seal, EC F No. 68) AMR’s 21 motion to strike is only tangentially related to the underlying cause of action because it 22 largely turns on one very straightforward question: whether certain evidence falls within 23 the scope of a reply brief or is otherwise authorized under federal law. Cf. United States v. 24 Celgene Corp., No. CV 10-3165 GHK (SS), 2016 WL 6609375, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 25 2016) (applying the “good cause” standard to seal the documents relating to a party’s 26 motion to strike supplemental expert report because the underlying motion to strike was 27 not “more than tangentially related to the merits”). Therefore, AMR must show good cause 28 to file exhibits 1–6 to the Girolamo Declaration under seal. 1 The “good cause” standard requires a particularized showing that “specific prejudice 2 or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 3 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). “If a court finds particularized harm will result from 4 disclosure of information to the public, then it balances the public and private interests to 5 decide whether a protective order is necessary. Id. at 1211. Courts have found good cause 6 to allow confidential settlement agreements or documents that discuss or disclose the terms 7 of the agreements to be filed under seal. See, e.g., Omnicell, Inc. v. Medacist Sols. Grp., 8 LLC, No. 10-CV-04746-LHK, 2011 WL 13384612, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (sealing 9 documents that discussed or disclosed the terms of a settlement agreement). Here, the 10 documents that AMR seeks to file under seal all discuss or disclose the terms of the 11 proposed settlement between the parties. After weighing the public and private interests at 12 issue, the Court concludes that it is necessary to seal the settlement discussions attached as 13 exhibits to the Girolamo Declaration. 14 Therefore, AMR’s motion to file under seal exhibits 1–6 to the Girolamo Declaration 15 is GRANTED. 16 17 B. The Parties’ Motions to File Under Seal Documents in support of, or 18 opposition to, Mendell’s Motion for Class Certification 19 The parties move to file under seal numerous documents relating to their briefs filed 20 in support of, or opposition to, the class certification motion. (Pl.’s Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 21 47; Def.’s Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 59; Pl.’s Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 65.) A motion for class 22 certification is central to the merits of a case and thus is “more than tangentially related to 23 the underlying cause of action.” Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC, 334 F.R.D. 552, 586 24 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099). Therefore, the parties 25 must bear the heavy burden of showing “‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual 26 findings’ that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 27 disclosure.” See id. (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL MENDELL, Case No. 19-cv-01227-BAS-KSC
12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 14 AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, MOTION TO SEAL (ECF No. 68); INC., 15 AND Defendant. 16 (2) DENYING WITHOUT 17 PREJUDICE a) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 18 SEAL (ECF No. 47); 19 b) DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SEAL (ECF No. 59); AND 20 c) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO 21 SEAL (ECF No. 65).
22 23 24 I. BACKGROUND 25 On July 1, 2019, Michael Mendell filed this putative class action against American 26 Medical Response, Inc. (“AMR”) in federal court. The parties sought a stipulated 27 protective order, which Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford entered on January 10, 2020. 28 (ECF No. 30.) 1 The parties each filed several motions to file documents under seal. Mendell moved 2 to seal documents for his motion for class certification (ECF No. 47) and for his reply. 3 (ECF No. 65). AMR moved to seal documents for its opposition to the motion for class 4 certification (ECF No. 59) and for its motion to strike. (ECF Nos. 68.) The Court finds 5 the motions suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. 6 See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). 7 8 II. LEGAL STANDARD 9 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 10 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 11 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 12 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 13 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. 14 State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 15 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 16 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 17 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 18 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 19 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 20 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 21 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 22 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 23 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 24 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 25 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 26 the tangential relevance threshold, the lesser, “good cause” standard applies. Id.; see Pintos 27 v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the “good cause” 28 standard imposes a lower burden than the “compelling reasons” standard). Under either 1 standard, “an order sealing the documents must be narrowly drawn to seal only those 2 portions of the record that, upon a balancing of the relevant interests, ought to be sealed.” 3 Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No. CV 10-03738-AB (CWX), 4 2015 WL 12698301, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015) (collecting cases). 5 Under this Court’s Standing Order, the parties seeking a sealing order to provide the 6 Court with “(1) a specific description of particular documents or categories of documents 7 they need to protect; and (2) declarations showing a compelling reason or good cause 8 to protect those documents from disclosure.” Hon. Cynthia Bashant’s Standing Order 9 for Civil Cases (“Standing Order”) § 5. “The standard for filing documents under seal will 10 be strictly applied.” Id. “Any protective order must be narrowly drawn” to reflect the 11 balance between the moving party’s interests and the public’s right to access the court files, 12 and “[a]ny member of the public may challenge the sealing of any particular document.” 13 Id. “The fact that both side[s] agree to seal or that a protective order was issued at the onset 14 of the case alone is insufficient cause for sealing.” Id. 15 16 III. ANALYSIS 17 A. AMR’S Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits 1–6 to the Girolamo 18 Declaration 19 AMR moves to file under seal exhibits 1–6 to the declaration of Rebecca A. 20 Girolamo in support of AMR’s motion to strike. (Mot. to Seal, EC F No. 68) AMR’s 21 motion to strike is only tangentially related to the underlying cause of action because it 22 largely turns on one very straightforward question: whether certain evidence falls within 23 the scope of a reply brief or is otherwise authorized under federal law. Cf. United States v. 24 Celgene Corp., No. CV 10-3165 GHK (SS), 2016 WL 6609375, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 25 2016) (applying the “good cause” standard to seal the documents relating to a party’s 26 motion to strike supplemental expert report because the underlying motion to strike was 27 not “more than tangentially related to the merits”). Therefore, AMR must show good cause 28 to file exhibits 1–6 to the Girolamo Declaration under seal. 1 The “good cause” standard requires a particularized showing that “specific prejudice 2 or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 3 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). “If a court finds particularized harm will result from 4 disclosure of information to the public, then it balances the public and private interests to 5 decide whether a protective order is necessary. Id. at 1211. Courts have found good cause 6 to allow confidential settlement agreements or documents that discuss or disclose the terms 7 of the agreements to be filed under seal. See, e.g., Omnicell, Inc. v. Medacist Sols. Grp., 8 LLC, No. 10-CV-04746-LHK, 2011 WL 13384612, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (sealing 9 documents that discussed or disclosed the terms of a settlement agreement). Here, the 10 documents that AMR seeks to file under seal all discuss or disclose the terms of the 11 proposed settlement between the parties. After weighing the public and private interests at 12 issue, the Court concludes that it is necessary to seal the settlement discussions attached as 13 exhibits to the Girolamo Declaration. 14 Therefore, AMR’s motion to file under seal exhibits 1–6 to the Girolamo Declaration 15 is GRANTED. 16 17 B. The Parties’ Motions to File Under Seal Documents in support of, or 18 opposition to, Mendell’s Motion for Class Certification 19 The parties move to file under seal numerous documents relating to their briefs filed 20 in support of, or opposition to, the class certification motion. (Pl.’s Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 21 47; Def.’s Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 59; Pl.’s Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 65.) A motion for class 22 certification is central to the merits of a case and thus is “more than tangentially related to 23 the underlying cause of action.” Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC, 334 F.R.D. 552, 586 24 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099). Therefore, the parties 25 must bear the heavy burden of showing “‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual 26 findings’ that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 27 disclosure.” See id. (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79). Generally, “compelling 28 reasons sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court 1 records exist when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, 2 such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous 3 statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. 4 at 598). 5 Here, the parties’ motions do not comply with this Court’s Standing Order nor the 6 law of this circuit, which require the party moving for a sealing order to make a 7 particularized showing of compelling reasons—supported by factual evidence—that 8 outweigh the strong presumption of access. See Krommenhock, 334 F.R.D. at 586; 9 Standing Order § 5. The only declarations that the parties attach in support of their motions 10 to seal are counsel declarations, which are insufficient to satisfy the “compelling reason” 11 standard. First, the counsel declarations rely on reference to the stipulated protective order 12 and Mendell’s non-opposition to AMR’s designation of materials as “confidential.” 13 Neither the protective order nor the non-opposition to the motions to seal supplies a legal 14 basis to curtail the public’s access to judicial records. See Standing Order § 5 (“The fact 15 that both side[s] agree to seal or that a protective order was issued at the onset of the case 16 alone is insufficient cause for sealing.”); see also In re Ferrero Litig., No. 11–CV–205 17 H(CAB), 2011 WL 3360443, *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011) (holding that a protective order 18 itself does not satisfy the standard required of a sealing order). Second, the declarations 19 rely on blanket claims that the documents are worthy of a sealing order and do not address 20 the filings on a line-by-line basis. That is not enough. At a minimum, the party moving to 21 seal multiple documents “must demonstrate specific prejudice or harm flowing from the 22 disclosure of [each] specific document.” See Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan, No. 17- 23 CV-02366-BAS-KSC, 2019 WL 6220898, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019) (citing 24 Unknown Parties v. Johnson, No. CV-15-00250-TUC-DCB, 2016 WL 8199309, at *4 (D. 25 Ariz. June 27, 2016)). Third, declarations by counsel who lacks personal knowledge of or 26 the foundation for the alleged harm from disclosure—for example, harm to the business 27 interests of AMR—cannot constitute factual evidence that supports a “compelling reason.” 28 See, e.g., Pac. Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Wartsila Def., Inc., No. 17-CV-555-L-NLS, 2018 1 WL 6601671, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2018) (finding that the declaration by counsel was 2 not enough to meet the “compelling reasons” standard because counsel lacked personal 3 knowledge of or foundation for the assertions that the information at issue might harm the 4 defendant company’s competitive standing); Signal Hill Serv., Inc. v. Macquarie Bank Ltd., 5 No. CV1101539MMMJEMX, 2013 WL 12244287, at *3 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2013) 6 (assigning “no weight” to the conclusory declaration by plaintiff’s counsel that disclosure 7 of the information at issue could harm the plaintiff’s business where the plaintiff did not 8 demonstrate that counsel had personal knowledge about the harm asserted). Fourth, the 9 parties make no effort in explaining why the broad scope of the requested sealing order 10 draws the right balance between the moving party’s interests and the public’s right to 11 access. For example, the declarations conclude, without explaining, that redactions cannot 12 satisfy the parties’ interests. Courts have held that redacting information as sensitive as 13 personally identifiable information of individuals who could face prosecution upon 14 disclosure could strike the right balance between the moving party’s interests and the 15 public’s right to access judicial records. See, e.g., Al Otro Lado, Inc., 2019 WL 6220898, 16 at *5. Without any explanation from the parties, the Court cannot determine whether the 17 scope of the sealing order that the parties seek strikes the right balance of competing 18 interests. 19 In sum, the parties have not met their burden to show compelling reasons that would 20 support their motions to file under seal the documents filed in support of, or opposition to, 21 class certification. Therefore, the Court denies without prejudice the parties’ motions to 22 seal. 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 CONCLUSION 2 The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to file under seal exhibits 1-6 to the 3 || declaration of Rebecca A. Girolamo in support of AMR’s motion to strike (ECF No. 68). 4 || The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to accept and FILE UNDER SEAL the requested 5 ||document (ECF No. 69). 6 The Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the parties’ motions to file under 7 || seal the documents filed in support of, or opposition to, Mendell’s motion to certify class 8 ||(Pl.’s Mot. to seal, ECF No. 47; Def.’s Mot. to Seal, ECF No. 59; Pl.’s Mot. to Seal, ECF 9 || No. 65). The parties may reapply for a sealing order on or before February 24, 2021. 10 || Should the parties elect to do so, the parties must meet and confer to coordinate any request 11 seal the same material and avoid duplicative filings. Any motion for a sealing order 12 fully address the “compelling reasons” supporting the sealing of the relevant 13 ||information. A party may do so by filing a chart identifying document name, sealed docket 14 ||number, and page and line/paragraph number of the precise information that the party seeks 15 ||to file under seal. That chart shall include citations to a declaration from a corporate 16 ||representative or other relevant individual with personal knowledge attesting as to the 17 reason why the sealing is necessary—for example, such declaration must identify a specific 18 || harm that would likely flow from public disclosure of that precise information. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 DATED: February 3, 2021 ( yi uA (Hiphan 6 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28