1 2 6 7 NELSON RAMIREZ, Case No. 21-cv-09955-BLF
8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL CORPORATION, et al., 11 [Re: ECF No. 117] Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Nelson Ramirez’s Administrative Motion to Consider 14 Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in connection with his Motion to Certify 15 Class. ECF No. 117. Defendant HV Global Management Corporation filed a statement in support 16 of sealing certain exhibits. ECF No. 120. The Court has considered the motion, and its ruling is 17 laid out below. 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 22 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 23 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 24 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 25 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 26 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 27 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 1 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 2 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 3 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 4 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 5 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 6 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 7 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as 8 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider 9 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing 10 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the 11 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, 12 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79- 13 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 14 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any 15 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 17 This Court has previously determined that the compelling reasons standard applies to 18 motions to seal documents relating to class certification. See, e.g., Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser 19 LLC, No. 20-CV-02101-BLF, 2022 WL 847309, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022); Adtrader, Inc. v. 20 Google LLC, No. 17-CV-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020); Yan 21 Mei Zheng-Lawson v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 17-CV-06591-BLF, 2019 WL 3413253, at *2 22 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2019). 23 In Plaintiff’s administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be 24 sealed he identified highlighted portions of his motion to certify class and certain exhibits attached 25 to that motion as containing information that Defendant has designated as confidential. ECF No. 26 117 at 1. Defendant filed a statement in support of sealing Exhibits 8, 10, 11, and 12, but did not 27 request that any of the other exhibits be sealed. ECF No. 120 at 1. Because Defendant does not 1 sealing of those documents. 2 As to Exhibits 8, 10, 11, and 12, Defendant argues that the documents should be sealed 3 because “they contain confidential and sensitive business information and trade secrets that would 4 harm HV Global’s business operations should they be publicly disclosed.” ECF No. 120-1 5 (“Haley Decl.”) ¶ 2. Defendant argues that Exhibit 8 is a sample set of work schedules that 6 contain sensitive information about Defendant’s operating procedures, including business 7 performance metrics that could be utilized by competitors to unfairly compete with Defendant. Id. 8 ¶ 3. Defendant argues that Exhibits 10, 11, and 12 contain putative class members’ wage records 9 that include sensitive information about Defendant’s practices for employee compensation and 10 Defendant’s sales and revenue figures. Id. ¶ 4. Defendants argue that this information could be 11 used by competitors to unfairly compete with Defendant. Id. 12 After evaluating Exhibits 8, 10, 11, and 12, the Court is satisfied that Defendant has 13 demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing these exhibits. Courts within the Ninth Circuit 14 commonly grant sealing requests to protect exactly this type of information. See, e.g., In re 15 Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx.568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing 16 “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy”); eBay Inc. v. Boch, No. 17 19-CV-04422-BLF, 2022 WL 1131720, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2022) (finding compelling 18 reasons to seal information about a party’s sales strategies); Barnes v. Hershey Co., No. 3:12-CV- 19 01334-CRB, 2015 WL 1814293, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2015) (finding compelling reasons to 20 seal information about “business strategy and trade secrets, including internal operations 21 information, account assignments and divisions, financial information regarding specific clients, 22 and [the defendant’s] organization structure and sales strategies”); TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v. 23 Avago Techs. Ltd., No. CV 09-1531-PHX-JAT, 2011 WL 4947343, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2011) 24 (finding compelling reasons to seal personnel records). 25 The Court finds that Defendant’s request to seal the entirety of the four exhibits identified 26 in Defendant’s statement is “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material,” Civ. L.R. 79- 27 5(c)(3), because each document contains specific and sensitive business operations and personnel 1 The Court rules as follows:
2 Exhibit No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 3 1 Defendant’s 2022 Highlighted DENIED because neither party Employee Handbook, Portions supports sealing. 4 Bates Nos. HVGLOBAL000233- 5 HVGLOBAL000242, produced by Defendant 6 in discovery on or 7 about May 22, 2023. 2 Defendant’s Meal and Entire Document DENIED because neither party 8 Rest Break Policy, supports sealing. signed by Defendant 9 and a putative class member in May 2021, 10 Bates Nos. 11 HVGLOBAL000271- HVGLOBAL000272, 12 produced by Defendant in discovery on or 13 about June 13, 2023. 14 3 Defendant’s Meal and Entire Document DENIED because neither party Rest Break Policy, supports sealing. 15 signed by Defendant and a putative class 16 member in December 2020, Bates Nos. 17 HVGLOBAL000276- 18 HVGLOBAL000277, produced by Defendant 19 in discovery on or about June 13, 2023. 20 4 Defendant’s Meal and Entire Document DENIED because neither party Rest Break Policy, supports sealing. 21 signed by Defendant 22 and a putative class member in February 23 2021, Bates Nos. HVGLOBAL000278- 24 HVGLOBAL000279, produced by Defendant 25 in discovery on or 26 about June 13, 2023. 5 Defendant’s Meal and Entire Document DENIED because neither party 27 Rest Break Policy, supports sealing. member in December 1 2020, Bates Nos. 2 HVGLOBAL000285- HVGLOBAL000286, 3 produced by Defendant in discovery on or 4 about June 13, 2023. 6 Defendant’s Meal and Entire Document DENIED because neither party 5 Rest Break Policy, supports sealing. 6 signed by Defendant and a putative class 7 member in May 2021, Bates Nos.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 6 7 NELSON RAMIREZ, Case No. 21-cv-09955-BLF
8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL CORPORATION, et al., 11 [Re: ECF No. 117] Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Nelson Ramirez’s Administrative Motion to Consider 14 Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in connection with his Motion to Certify 15 Class. ECF No. 117. Defendant HV Global Management Corporation filed a statement in support 16 of sealing certain exhibits. ECF No. 120. The Court has considered the motion, and its ruling is 17 laid out below. 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 22 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 23 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 24 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 25 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 26 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 27 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 1 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 2 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 3 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 4 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 5 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 6 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 7 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as 8 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider 9 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing 10 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the 11 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, 12 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79- 13 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 14 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any 15 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 17 This Court has previously determined that the compelling reasons standard applies to 18 motions to seal documents relating to class certification. See, e.g., Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser 19 LLC, No. 20-CV-02101-BLF, 2022 WL 847309, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022); Adtrader, Inc. v. 20 Google LLC, No. 17-CV-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020); Yan 21 Mei Zheng-Lawson v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 17-CV-06591-BLF, 2019 WL 3413253, at *2 22 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2019). 23 In Plaintiff’s administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be 24 sealed he identified highlighted portions of his motion to certify class and certain exhibits attached 25 to that motion as containing information that Defendant has designated as confidential. ECF No. 26 117 at 1. Defendant filed a statement in support of sealing Exhibits 8, 10, 11, and 12, but did not 27 request that any of the other exhibits be sealed. ECF No. 120 at 1. Because Defendant does not 1 sealing of those documents. 2 As to Exhibits 8, 10, 11, and 12, Defendant argues that the documents should be sealed 3 because “they contain confidential and sensitive business information and trade secrets that would 4 harm HV Global’s business operations should they be publicly disclosed.” ECF No. 120-1 5 (“Haley Decl.”) ¶ 2. Defendant argues that Exhibit 8 is a sample set of work schedules that 6 contain sensitive information about Defendant’s operating procedures, including business 7 performance metrics that could be utilized by competitors to unfairly compete with Defendant. Id. 8 ¶ 3. Defendant argues that Exhibits 10, 11, and 12 contain putative class members’ wage records 9 that include sensitive information about Defendant’s practices for employee compensation and 10 Defendant’s sales and revenue figures. Id. ¶ 4. Defendants argue that this information could be 11 used by competitors to unfairly compete with Defendant. Id. 12 After evaluating Exhibits 8, 10, 11, and 12, the Court is satisfied that Defendant has 13 demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing these exhibits. Courts within the Ninth Circuit 14 commonly grant sealing requests to protect exactly this type of information. See, e.g., In re 15 Electronic Arts, 298 Fed.Appx.568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing 16 “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy”); eBay Inc. v. Boch, No. 17 19-CV-04422-BLF, 2022 WL 1131720, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2022) (finding compelling 18 reasons to seal information about a party’s sales strategies); Barnes v. Hershey Co., No. 3:12-CV- 19 01334-CRB, 2015 WL 1814293, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2015) (finding compelling reasons to 20 seal information about “business strategy and trade secrets, including internal operations 21 information, account assignments and divisions, financial information regarding specific clients, 22 and [the defendant’s] organization structure and sales strategies”); TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v. 23 Avago Techs. Ltd., No. CV 09-1531-PHX-JAT, 2011 WL 4947343, at *2 (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2011) 24 (finding compelling reasons to seal personnel records). 25 The Court finds that Defendant’s request to seal the entirety of the four exhibits identified 26 in Defendant’s statement is “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material,” Civ. L.R. 79- 27 5(c)(3), because each document contains specific and sensitive business operations and personnel 1 The Court rules as follows:
2 Exhibit No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 3 1 Defendant’s 2022 Highlighted DENIED because neither party Employee Handbook, Portions supports sealing. 4 Bates Nos. HVGLOBAL000233- 5 HVGLOBAL000242, produced by Defendant 6 in discovery on or 7 about May 22, 2023. 2 Defendant’s Meal and Entire Document DENIED because neither party 8 Rest Break Policy, supports sealing. signed by Defendant 9 and a putative class member in May 2021, 10 Bates Nos. 11 HVGLOBAL000271- HVGLOBAL000272, 12 produced by Defendant in discovery on or 13 about June 13, 2023. 14 3 Defendant’s Meal and Entire Document DENIED because neither party Rest Break Policy, supports sealing. 15 signed by Defendant and a putative class 16 member in December 2020, Bates Nos. 17 HVGLOBAL000276- 18 HVGLOBAL000277, produced by Defendant 19 in discovery on or about June 13, 2023. 20 4 Defendant’s Meal and Entire Document DENIED because neither party Rest Break Policy, supports sealing. 21 signed by Defendant 22 and a putative class member in February 23 2021, Bates Nos. HVGLOBAL000278- 24 HVGLOBAL000279, produced by Defendant 25 in discovery on or 26 about June 13, 2023. 5 Defendant’s Meal and Entire Document DENIED because neither party 27 Rest Break Policy, supports sealing. member in December 1 2020, Bates Nos. 2 HVGLOBAL000285- HVGLOBAL000286, 3 produced by Defendant in discovery on or 4 about June 13, 2023. 6 Defendant’s Meal and Entire Document DENIED because neither party 5 Rest Break Policy, supports sealing. 6 signed by Defendant and a putative class 7 member in May 2021, Bates Nos. 8 HVGLOBAL000288- HVGLOBAL000289, 9 produced by Defendant 10 in discovery on or about June 13, 2023. 11 7 Trainings on its Wage Entire Document DENIED because neither party and Hour Policies, supports sealing. 12 Bates Nos. HVGLOBAL000172- 13 HVGLOBAL000215, 14 produced by Defendant in discovery on or 15 about May 22, 2023. 8 Sampling of work Entire Document GRANTED as containing 16 schedules of the confidential business information 17 putative class members the release of which would harm throughout the Class a party’s competitive standing. 18 Period, Bates Nos. HVGLOBAL000399- 19 HVGLOBAL000434, HVGLOBAL000454- 20 HVGLOBAL000469, 21 HVGLOBAL000583- HVGLOBAL000587, 22 HVGLOBAL000780- HVGLOBAL000805, 23 produced by Defendant in discovery on or 24 about June 22, 2023. 25 9 Defendant HV Global’s Entire Document DENIED because neither party Employee Parking supports sealing. 26 Policy in effect during the Class Period, Bates 27 Nos. HVGLOBAL000164, 1 produced by Defendant 2 in discovery on or about May 22, 2023. 3 10 Putative class Entire Document GRANTED as containing members’ wage records confidential business information 4 produced by the release of which would harm Defendants in excel a party’s competitive standing. 5 format: 6 a. Employee ID: 110249; pay period 7 end date: July 19, 2019 8 b. Employee ID: 109017; pay period 9 end date: October 10 11, 2019 c. Employee ID: 11 6017807; pay period end date: 12 October 14, 2022 d. Employee ID: 13 3122060; pay 14 period end date: March 17, 2023 15 e. Employee ID: 3122425; pay 16 period end date: 17 April 14, 2023 11 Putative class Entire Document GRANTED as containing 18 members’ wage records confidential business information produced by the release of which would harm 19 Defendants in excel a party’s competitive standing. format: 20 a. Employee ID: 21 110184 earned a service charge 22 payment and a meal premium during the 23 pay period ending on December 20, 24 2019 25 b. Employee ID: 3112964 earned a 26 bonus and a meal premium during the 27 pay period ending 2020. 1 c. Employee ID: 2 3108971 earned nondiscretionary 3 award pay and a meal premium 4 during the pay period ending on 5 May 29, 2021. 6 12 Putative class Entire Document GRANTED as containing members’ wage records confidential business information 7 produced by the release of which would harm Defendants in excel a party’s competitive standing. 8 format: a. Employee ID: 9 112964 earned a 10 commission and overtime during the 11 pay period ending on November 8, 12 2019. b. Employee ID: 13 310184 earned 14 service charge payments and 15 overtime during the pay period ending 16 on July 23, 2021. 17 c. Employee ID: 3110202 earned 18 service charge payments and 19 overtime during the pay period ending 20 on July 9, 2021. 21 15 Plaintiff Notice of Highlighted DENIED because neither party Motion and Motion for Portions supports sealing. 22 Class Certification; Memorandum of Points 23 and Authorities in Support Thereof filed 24 on August 18, 2023 25
26 III. ORDER 27 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Nelson Ramirez’s 1 Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in 2 connection with his Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 117) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 3 IN PART. Ramirez is directed to file the unsealed versions of Exhibits 1-7, 9, and 15 on the 4 || public docket within 10 days of the date of this Order. 5 6 Dated: October 20, 2023 _faiinfneden BETH LABSON FREEMAN 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12
15 16
= 17
Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28