Napleton Orlando Imports, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5

6 MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC) IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL”

7 MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 8 _____________________________________/ SEAL

9 This Order Relates To: MDL Dkt. Nos. 6653, 6918 10

11 Napleton, No. 3:16-cv-2086-CRB _____________________________________/ 12 13 The Bosch defendants have moved to seal in full or in part certain documents that they 14 attached to their motion for summary judgment. They also have moved to redact the portions of 15 their summary judgment briefs that reveal the contents of the documents they seek to seal. The 16 documents at issue were designated as confidential by Volkswagen or by the Volkswagen 17 dealerships that are the named plaintiffs in Napleton. 18 Because the documents at issue were attached to a motion for summary judgment, their 19 contents may be sealed only if compelling reasons are offered. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 20 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 2003). Even if compelling reasons are identified, the 21 Court must still “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep 22 [the] judicial records secret.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 23 (9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). 24 With respect to the Volkswagen-designated documents, Volkswagen did not respond to the 25 Bosch defendants’ motions to seal, and thus has not identified compelling reasons for its 26 documents to be sealed. The Volkswagen-designated documents must therefore be publicly 27 disclosed, and the documents’ contents may not be redacted in the summary judgement briefs. 1 only a subset of their documents remain under seal. The identified documents contain sales, 2 || profit, and vehicle-inventory numbers for the dealerships, and an accounting of the settlement and 3 support payments that the dealerships received from Volkswagen after the emissions fraud was 4 || revealed. The dealerships maintain that “[d]isclosure of this information could benefit competitors 5 in their dealings with consumers.” (E.g., MDL Dkt. No. 6661, Berman Decl. ¥ 8.) 6 Much of the information that the dealerships seek to seal has been used by the parties to 7 || calculate damages; and those calculations are central to the Bosch defendants’ motion for 8 || summary judgment. If this information is sealed, the public’s ability to understand the 9 || proceedings will be compromised. This fact weighs against the sealing request. See Ctr. for Auto 10 || Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096 (noting that the presumption of public access to judicial records is “based 11 on the need for federal courts . . . to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have 12 || confidence in the administration of justice’’) (citation omitted). 5 13 Also weighing against the sealing request, the dealerships have not explained how the 14 || information in question would benefit their competitors. The lack of an explanation means that if 3 15 the Court were to grant the request, the factual basis for its ruling would be based “on hypothesis 16 || or conjecture,” which is not permitted. Jd. at 1097. “Simply mentioning a general category of 3 17 privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not 18 satisfy the [compelling reasons standard].” Kamakana vy. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 19 1184 (9th Cir. 2006). 20 On balance, the public’s right of access outweighs the dealerships’ claim of competitive 21 harm. The dealership-designated documents must therefore be publicly disclosed, and information 22 || from those documents may not be redacted in the summary judgement briefs. 23 By Thursday, December 5, 2019, the Bosch defendants shall file unredacted versions of 24 || all exhibits to their motion for summary judgment, as well as versions of their summary judgment 25 briefs (the motion and reply) that are free of redactions. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. f K 27 Dated: November 25, 2019 xo CHARLES R. BREYER 28 United States District Judge