1 2 3 4 5 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8
SUELEN, ANNE PELLETTIERI, 11 No. C 20-05599 WHA MARISSA FEENEY, and CARYN
12 PRASSE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
13 Plaintiffs, OMNIBUS ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL 14 v. 15 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR 16 COMPANY, INC., and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD. 17 Defendants. 18
19 In connection with a motion for class certification, plaintiffs have moved to file under 20 seal certain exhibits and portions of their briefing. Defendants have moved to do the same 21 (Dkt. Nos. 67, 82, 99, 109). Because the underlying motion for class certification was more 22 than tangentially related to the merits of the case, compelling reasons are required to warrant 23 sealing. See Civil L.R. 7-11, 79-5(e); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 24 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 25 (9th Cir. 2006).1 26 1 Our new Civil Local Rules became effective on November 1, 2021. The class certification 27 motion was filed October 1, 2021 (Dkt. No. 68). The opposition brief was filed October 29, 2021 1 The declarations in support of plaintiffs’ motion to seal state that the documents or 2 portions thereof listed in the table below have been designated as confidential or highly 3 confidential pursuant to the parties’ protective order. Defense counsel timely filed supportive 4 affidavits. They generally argue for sealing on the grounds of competition. 5 As our record contained substantial duplication of information from multiple sources, 6 sealing may be denied as to certain documents that the order did not cite. Sealing is 7 nonetheless denied only for the most important information central to the orders’ decision- 8 making. Except to the extent stated below, the requests to seal are DENIED. 9 With respect to Exhibit 11 of the declaration of William Delgado, the motion to seal is 10 DENIED without prejudice to defendants filing within SEVEN DAYS proposed, limited 11 redactions that comport with the remainder of this order. As to the remaining documents, 12 revised materials shall be filed within TWENTY-ONE DAYS of this order. 13 DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE RULING PORTION TO BE SEALED 14 SEALED IN WHOLE OR IN PART 15 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Marissa Feeney, Anne Pellettieri, Caryn 16 Prasse, Mary Quackenbush, Gheri Suelen (Dkt. No. 67). Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in GRANTED IN PART for the Only the highlighted 17 Support of Motion for Class reasons stated below. portions corresponding to Certification. materials otherwise 18 permitted to be sealed 19 herein. Greenstone Decl. GRANTED. 4:25–26 20 Greenstone Decl. Exhs. B, C, D, GRANTED. For class Exhs. B, C, D, E, F, I, J, K, E, F, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, certification purposes, the L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T 21 R, S, and T. exhibits contained greater to the Greenstone declaration. 22 detail than was needed to reach the ruling. At a later 23 stage of proceedings, this calculus may change. 24 Report of Michael D. DENIED IN PART. Though 5:1–13, 5:17–19, 6:15–8:28, Stapleford. the report relied on and 27:23–24, 31–34:17 25 26 support were, when necessary, filed timely under the rule applicable when each motion was filed. 27 In the interest of clarity, this order has assessed the merits of the sealing requests related to class summarized the 1 Greenstone Declaration 2 Exhibits (immediately above), this order denies 3 sealing as to the portions that synthesized core 4 issues, including the function of the VTC 5 actuator, countermeasures, 6 and possible safety issues. This does not outweigh the 7 public’s compelling interest. 8 Stapleford Report Exhs. C, D, GRANTED IN PART. The Only customers’ phone and E. Gibson declaration only numbers, names, addresses, 9 calls out customer private or other identifying 10 identifying information and information may be “proprietary diagnostic redacted. Additionally, 11 codes” (Gibson Decl. ¶ 12). only the exact digits or alphanumeric diagnostic 12 codes may be redacted. 13 Report of Steven Boyles. GRANTED IN PART. For 4:1–3 and n.2, 4:9–18, class certification 7:18–8:11, 8:13–14, and n. 14 purposes, the report 14, and 10:13–11:8. contained greater detail on 15 damages was needed to reach the ruling. At a later 16 stage of proceedings, this 17 calculus may change. Boyles Report Exh. B. GRANTED. Entire Document. 18 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by American Honda Motor Company, 19 Inc., Honda Motor Company, Ltd. (Dkt. No. 82). 20 Opposition to Motion for Class GRANTED IN PART. Only the highlighted Certification. portions corresponding to 21 materials otherwise permitted to be sealed 22 herein except, to the extent sealing was granted with 23 respect to pages 1, 7, 9, 10, 24 12:1–21, the motion to seal is DENIED. 25 Motion to Exclude Stapleford GRANTED IN PART. Only the highlighted Declaration. portions corresponding to 26 materials otherwise permitted to be sealed 27 herein. Gibson Opp. Decl. GRANTED IN PART. For 8:9–11 and the QIS 1 class certification numbers. 2 purposes, the report contained greater detail 3 than was needed to reach the ruling than do the 4 associated exhibits. At a later stage of proceedings, 5 this calculus may change. 6 Gibson Opp. Decl. Exhs. 4 and GRANTED. Entire document. 5. 7 Delgado Opp. Decl. GRANTED IN PART. Highlighted portion excluding “warranty data 8 entries.” 9 Delgado Opp. Decl. Exh. 6. GRANTED IN PART. The Highlighted portions of portions of the deposition Exhibit 6 not including 10 in which sealing is denied 14:18–15:3; 20:17–21:20; relate directly to the 35:2–3; 46:13–18; 99:21– 11 existence of a common 23; 119:22–120:17; 122:14– defect in all class vehicles 24; 124:12–18; 141:22– 12 and to the purported 143:16; 144:21–145:3–24; 13 existence of safety-related 146:2–6. defect. Defendants object 14 that the descriptions concern confidential 15 processes and confidential business decisions (see 16 generally Dkt. No. 91-1 at 17 ¶¶ 14–17). Again, other materials detailing some of 18 the same information contained greater detail 19 than was needed to reach the ruling than do the 20 associated exhibits. At a 21 later stage of proceedings, this calculus may change. 22 Delgado Opp. Decl. Exh. 11. DENIED. Exhibit 11 was filed without redactions. 23 The request to seal the entire exhibit is overbroad. 24 Taylor Report Exh. 1. GRANTED IN PART. Highlighted portions except 25 Again, other materials Figs. 2, 3, 6; ¶ 55; ¶ 56. presented some of the 26 same information with less detail than this document. 27 This document sometimes than was needed to reach 1 the ruling. At a later stage 2 of proceedings, this calculus may change. 3 Strombom Report. DENIED. This request seeks sealing of “Exhibit 3 4 to the Declaration of Bruce Strombom, 5 including the highlighted 6 portions of Paragraphs 38 and 44).” This order 7 interprets the request to seek sealing of only the 8 highlighted portions, which are also shown as 9 redacted in Dkt. No. 86-1. 10 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendants Material Cited Or Referenced In 11 Plaintiffs Reply In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Class Certification And Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude, filed by Marissa Feeney, Anne Pellettieri, 12 Caryn Prasse, Mary Quackenbush, Gheri Suelen (Dkt. No. 99). 13 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of GRANTED IN PART. Only the highlighted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class portions corresponding to 14 Certification. materials otherwise permitted to be sealed 15 herein. 16 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion GRANTED IN PART. Only the highlighted to Exclude Declaration of portions corresponding to 17 Plaintiffs’ Expert Michael materials otherwise Stapleford. permitted to be sealed 18 herein except 4:7–8. Greenstone Decl. Exh. V. DENIED as overbroad. Mr. 19 Arst’s testimony goes directly to the existence of 20 common proof for various 21 elements.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8
SUELEN, ANNE PELLETTIERI, 11 No. C 20-05599 WHA MARISSA FEENEY, and CARYN
12 PRASSE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
13 Plaintiffs, OMNIBUS ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL 14 v. 15 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR 16 COMPANY, INC., and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD. 17 Defendants. 18
19 In connection with a motion for class certification, plaintiffs have moved to file under 20 seal certain exhibits and portions of their briefing. Defendants have moved to do the same 21 (Dkt. Nos. 67, 82, 99, 109). Because the underlying motion for class certification was more 22 than tangentially related to the merits of the case, compelling reasons are required to warrant 23 sealing. See Civil L.R. 7-11, 79-5(e); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 24 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 25 (9th Cir. 2006).1 26 1 Our new Civil Local Rules became effective on November 1, 2021. The class certification 27 motion was filed October 1, 2021 (Dkt. No. 68). The opposition brief was filed October 29, 2021 1 The declarations in support of plaintiffs’ motion to seal state that the documents or 2 portions thereof listed in the table below have been designated as confidential or highly 3 confidential pursuant to the parties’ protective order. Defense counsel timely filed supportive 4 affidavits. They generally argue for sealing on the grounds of competition. 5 As our record contained substantial duplication of information from multiple sources, 6 sealing may be denied as to certain documents that the order did not cite. Sealing is 7 nonetheless denied only for the most important information central to the orders’ decision- 8 making. Except to the extent stated below, the requests to seal are DENIED. 9 With respect to Exhibit 11 of the declaration of William Delgado, the motion to seal is 10 DENIED without prejudice to defendants filing within SEVEN DAYS proposed, limited 11 redactions that comport with the remainder of this order. As to the remaining documents, 12 revised materials shall be filed within TWENTY-ONE DAYS of this order. 13 DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE RULING PORTION TO BE SEALED 14 SEALED IN WHOLE OR IN PART 15 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Marissa Feeney, Anne Pellettieri, Caryn 16 Prasse, Mary Quackenbush, Gheri Suelen (Dkt. No. 67). Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in GRANTED IN PART for the Only the highlighted 17 Support of Motion for Class reasons stated below. portions corresponding to Certification. materials otherwise 18 permitted to be sealed 19 herein. Greenstone Decl. GRANTED. 4:25–26 20 Greenstone Decl. Exhs. B, C, D, GRANTED. For class Exhs. B, C, D, E, F, I, J, K, E, F, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, certification purposes, the L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, and T 21 R, S, and T. exhibits contained greater to the Greenstone declaration. 22 detail than was needed to reach the ruling. At a later 23 stage of proceedings, this calculus may change. 24 Report of Michael D. DENIED IN PART. Though 5:1–13, 5:17–19, 6:15–8:28, Stapleford. the report relied on and 27:23–24, 31–34:17 25 26 support were, when necessary, filed timely under the rule applicable when each motion was filed. 27 In the interest of clarity, this order has assessed the merits of the sealing requests related to class summarized the 1 Greenstone Declaration 2 Exhibits (immediately above), this order denies 3 sealing as to the portions that synthesized core 4 issues, including the function of the VTC 5 actuator, countermeasures, 6 and possible safety issues. This does not outweigh the 7 public’s compelling interest. 8 Stapleford Report Exhs. C, D, GRANTED IN PART. The Only customers’ phone and E. Gibson declaration only numbers, names, addresses, 9 calls out customer private or other identifying 10 identifying information and information may be “proprietary diagnostic redacted. Additionally, 11 codes” (Gibson Decl. ¶ 12). only the exact digits or alphanumeric diagnostic 12 codes may be redacted. 13 Report of Steven Boyles. GRANTED IN PART. For 4:1–3 and n.2, 4:9–18, class certification 7:18–8:11, 8:13–14, and n. 14 purposes, the report 14, and 10:13–11:8. contained greater detail on 15 damages was needed to reach the ruling. At a later 16 stage of proceedings, this 17 calculus may change. Boyles Report Exh. B. GRANTED. Entire Document. 18 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by American Honda Motor Company, 19 Inc., Honda Motor Company, Ltd. (Dkt. No. 82). 20 Opposition to Motion for Class GRANTED IN PART. Only the highlighted Certification. portions corresponding to 21 materials otherwise permitted to be sealed 22 herein except, to the extent sealing was granted with 23 respect to pages 1, 7, 9, 10, 24 12:1–21, the motion to seal is DENIED. 25 Motion to Exclude Stapleford GRANTED IN PART. Only the highlighted Declaration. portions corresponding to 26 materials otherwise permitted to be sealed 27 herein. Gibson Opp. Decl. GRANTED IN PART. For 8:9–11 and the QIS 1 class certification numbers. 2 purposes, the report contained greater detail 3 than was needed to reach the ruling than do the 4 associated exhibits. At a later stage of proceedings, 5 this calculus may change. 6 Gibson Opp. Decl. Exhs. 4 and GRANTED. Entire document. 5. 7 Delgado Opp. Decl. GRANTED IN PART. Highlighted portion excluding “warranty data 8 entries.” 9 Delgado Opp. Decl. Exh. 6. GRANTED IN PART. The Highlighted portions of portions of the deposition Exhibit 6 not including 10 in which sealing is denied 14:18–15:3; 20:17–21:20; relate directly to the 35:2–3; 46:13–18; 99:21– 11 existence of a common 23; 119:22–120:17; 122:14– defect in all class vehicles 24; 124:12–18; 141:22– 12 and to the purported 143:16; 144:21–145:3–24; 13 existence of safety-related 146:2–6. defect. Defendants object 14 that the descriptions concern confidential 15 processes and confidential business decisions (see 16 generally Dkt. No. 91-1 at 17 ¶¶ 14–17). Again, other materials detailing some of 18 the same information contained greater detail 19 than was needed to reach the ruling than do the 20 associated exhibits. At a 21 later stage of proceedings, this calculus may change. 22 Delgado Opp. Decl. Exh. 11. DENIED. Exhibit 11 was filed without redactions. 23 The request to seal the entire exhibit is overbroad. 24 Taylor Report Exh. 1. GRANTED IN PART. Highlighted portions except 25 Again, other materials Figs. 2, 3, 6; ¶ 55; ¶ 56. presented some of the 26 same information with less detail than this document. 27 This document sometimes than was needed to reach 1 the ruling. At a later stage 2 of proceedings, this calculus may change. 3 Strombom Report. DENIED. This request seeks sealing of “Exhibit 3 4 to the Declaration of Bruce Strombom, 5 including the highlighted 6 portions of Paragraphs 38 and 44).” This order 7 interprets the request to seek sealing of only the 8 highlighted portions, which are also shown as 9 redacted in Dkt. No. 86-1. 10 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendants Material Cited Or Referenced In 11 Plaintiffs Reply In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Class Certification And Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Exclude, filed by Marissa Feeney, Anne Pellettieri, 12 Caryn Prasse, Mary Quackenbush, Gheri Suelen (Dkt. No. 99). 13 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of GRANTED IN PART. Only the highlighted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class portions corresponding to 14 Certification. materials otherwise permitted to be sealed 15 herein. 16 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Motion GRANTED IN PART. Only the highlighted to Exclude Declaration of portions corresponding to 17 Plaintiffs’ Expert Michael materials otherwise Stapleford. permitted to be sealed 18 herein except 4:7–8. Greenstone Decl. Exh. V. DENIED as overbroad. Mr. 19 Arst’s testimony goes directly to the existence of 20 common proof for various 21 elements. Notwithstanding 22 defendants’ objections, this material was essential 23 to the merits decision 24 (Dkt. No. 106-1). Greenstone Decl. Exh. W. GRANTED. Again, this Entire document. 25 document contained greater detail than was 26 needed to reach the ruling than do other documents 27 stating some of the same 1 information. Later, the calculus may change. 2 Greenstone Decl. Exh. AA. GRANTED. Again, this Entire document. document contained 3 greater detail than was needed to reach the ruling 4 than do other documents 5 stating some of the same information. Later, the 6 calculus may change. Stapleford Decl. Exh. A. GRANTED except as to any | Highlighted portions except 7 portion cited in the orders as to any cited in the orders regarding class regarding class certification. 8 certification. 9 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by American Honda Motor Company, Inc., 10 Honda Motor Company, Ltd. (Dkt. No. 109). Delgado Decl. Reply In Support | GRANTED. Highlighted portions. 11 of Motion to Exclude Stapleford D Report Exh. 17. Delgado Decl. Reply In Support DENIED for the reasons Highlighted portions. 13 of Motion to Exclude Stapleford — | stated above about Mr. Report Exh. 18. Arst’s testimony. 14 Defendant’s Reply Brief in DENIED for the reasons Support of Motion to Exclude stated above. IS Stapleford Report. 16
18 19 Dated: May 27, 2022.
as Pee 21 = 22 WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28