Raynaldo v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RONALD RAYNALDO, et al., Case No. 21-cv-05808-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO 9 v. CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE 10 AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., SEALED 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 123

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to consider whether another party’s materials should 14 be sealed. The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. 15 I. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 17 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 18 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 19 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 20 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 21 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 22 strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific 23 factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 24 disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79 25 (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). For example, a court may order 26 sealing under the “compelling reasons” standard of confidential and proprietary business 27 information when public disclosure of such information “could result in improper use by business 1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2023). 2 Records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the underlying cause of 3 action” must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); 5 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” 6 that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates 7 of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” 9 will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) 10 (quotation omitted). 11 When a party seeks to seal a document that has been designated as confidential by another 12 party or non-party, the party filing the sealing motion need not satisfy the showing described 13 above. See Civ. L-R 79-5(f)(1). Instead, within seven days of the motion’s filing, the designating 14 party must file a statement or declaration justifying the reasons for keeping the document or 15 information under seal. Id. 79-5(f)(3). A failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the 16 unsealing of the provisionally sealed material without further notice to the designating party. Id. 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 Plaintiffs filed a motion to consider whether to seal excerpts from their Opposition to 19 Defendant’s Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of a Magistrate Judge, along 20 with four attached exhibits, all of which contain material marked by Defendant as confidential. 21 Dkt No. 123. Defendant timely filed a response. See Dkt. No. 132. 22 Defendant asks the Court to seal one excerpt from Plaintiffs’ opposition, which quotes the 23 email exchange in Exhibit C between Defendant’s employees. Dkt. No. 132 at 2, 5. Defendant 24 argues that this quote discusses non-class vehicles, market quality investigation techniques, and 25 warranty trend analysis. Id. Defendant disagrees that the remaining opposition excerpts 26 mentioned in Plaintiffs’ motion should be sealed. Id. Defendant also asks the Court to seal 27 Exhibits A–D in full. See id. at 3. Defendant argues that the exhibits discuss highly confidential 1 projections,” as well as non-class vehicles and a component issue that was separate and distinct 2 from the allegations in this case.1 See id. at 5–6. Defendant argues that disclosure of these 3 materials would reveal proprietary and commercially sensitive data and would harm Defendant’s 4 competitive standing. See id. at 6 n.5 (citing Dkt. No. 115-1). 5 Because Plaintiff seeks to seal documents related to a nondispositive discovery motion that 6 is only “tangentially related to the merits of the case,” the Court applies the “good cause” standard. 7 See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc., No. 5:22-CV-04844-BLF, 2025 8 WL 459365, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2025) (applying the “good cause” standard to a motion for 9 relief from a nondispositive pretrial order of a magistrate judge). 10 The Court finds that the exhibits and the related excerpt contain Defendant’s warranty 11 trend data and root cause analysis and agrees that disclosing this information could reveal 12 Defendant’s proprietary methods and put it at a competitive disadvantage. Courts in similar 13 circumstances have found that the harms from disclosing root cause analysis and warranty trend 14 data constitute good cause to seal. See Lessin v. Ford Motor Co., No. 19-CV-01082-AJB-AHG, 15 2024 WL 4547374, at *4 (S.D. Cal. June 14, 2024) (sealing root cause analysis and warranty data 16 that the party alleged revealed “the highly proprietary thought processes and problem-solving 17 processes” of the company); see also Philips v. Ford Motor Co., No. 14-CV-02989-LHK, 2016 18 WL 7374214, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2016) (agreeing that “testing, evaluation, investigations, 19 and root cause analyses” are valuable diagnostic procedures that could cause competitive harm if 20 revealed). Since these exhibits discuss this analysis and data throughout, the Court is satisfied that 21 trying to seal narrower portions of the exhibits would not grant additional access for the public and 22 would merely make the remaining content unintelligible, especially given that the case is now 23 closed. For these reasons, the Court finds that Defendant has shown good cause to seal. 24 III. CONCLUSION 25 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Dkt. No. 123 as to the materials identified by 26 1 Whether the non-class vehicles and the other issue are relevant is a matter of some dispute and 27 was at issue in the underlying motion for relief. See Dkt. No. 114 (pretrial order); Dkt. No. 115 1 Defendant. The Court DENIES the remainder of the motion to seal addressing the other excerpts 2 || in Plaintiffs’ opposition, as Defendant has not argued that this material is confidential and subject 3 || toseal. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file unredacted versions of the opposition brief on the 4 || public docket within 7 days of this order. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 || Dated: 9/19/2025

awn S. GILLIAM, JR. / 9 United States District Judge 10 11 a 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28