Saramiento v. Fresh Harvest, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 RIGOBERTO SARMIENTO, et al., Case No. 20-cv-07974-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING SEALING 9 v. MOTIONS

10 FRESH HARVEST, INC.,, et al., [Re: ECF Nos. 180, 188] 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is (1) Plaintiffs Rigoberto Sarmiento and Gustavo Luevano-Vaca’s 14 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) administrative motion to file under seal portions of and exhibits to their 15 motion for protective order (ECF No. 180) and (2) Defendants Fresh Harvest, Inc. and SMD 16 Logistics, Inc.’s (collectively, “Fresh Harvest”) administrative motion to file under seal portions of 17 and exhibits to Fresh Harvest’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for protective order (ECF No. 188). 18 Plaintiffs’ motion for protective order alleges that Fresh Harvest sent a commander (the 19 “Commander”) of a militia group in Mexico (the “Militia Group”) to Mr. Luevano-Vaca’s house in 20 order to coerce Mr. Luevano-Vaca into settling his claims in the above-captioned action. See Motion 21 for Protective Order, ECF No. 178. Fresh Harvest’s counsel asserts that a public court filing 22 claiming that Fresh Harvest is affiliated with the Commander or the Militia Group “could put our 23 client’s lives in very real danger.” See June 28, 2022 Mussig Email, ECF No. 180-4 at 2. 24 Accordingly, the parties move to seal all references to the Commander or the Militia Group in their 25 filings related to Plaintiffs’ motion for protective order. See ECF Nos. 180, 188. 26 Based on the below reasoning, the Court GRANTS the parties’ sealing motions. 27 I. LEGAL STANDARD 1 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 2 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 3 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than 4 tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling 5 reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–102 (9th Cir. 6 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing 7 of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 8 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 9 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 10 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 11 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 12 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(i). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 13 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 14 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(ii). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 The parties’ sealing motions pertain to filings related to Plaintiffs’ motion for protective 17 order. Since Plaintiffs’ motion is only tangentially related to the merits of their claims, the filings 18 at issue may be sealed upon a showing of “good cause.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. 19 Fresh Harvest seeks to have information about the Militia Group and Commander filed under 20 seal because Fresh Harvest’s counsel contends that a public court filing associating Fresh Harvest 21 with the Militia Group or Commander “could put our client’s lives in very real danger.” See 22 ECF 178-3. Plaintiffs do not oppose Fresh Harvest’s request. The Court finds that Fresh Harvest 23 has met the “good cause” standard for sealing the information at issue. Concerns about a party’s 24 safety if information is disclosed are sufficient to meet the “good cause” standard. The Court rules 25 as follows on the documents Fresh Harvest seeks to have sealed: 26 / / / 27 / / / ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 1 178 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Highlighted portions at: GRANTED, as 2 Motion and Motion for • 1:7 containing information Protective Order to (1) • 1:11 that may put Fresh 3 Prohibit Fresh Harvest • 4:21–28 Harvest in danger if Defendants from disclosed publicly. 4 Contacting Plaintiffs; (2) Prohibit Fresh Harvest 5 Defendants from 6 Obtaining Releases from Putative Class Members; 7 and (3) Limit Fresh Harvest Defendants’ 8 Contact with Putative Class Members 9 178-1 Declaration of Gustavo Highlighted portions at: GRANTED, as 10 Luevano-Vaca in Support • ¶ 3 containing information of Plaintiffs’ Motion for • ¶¶ 5–8 that may put Fresh 11 Protective Order, and • ¶ 10 Harvest in danger if Exhibit • ¶ 12 disclosed publicly. 12 178-2 Declaration of Sharay Highlighted portions at: GRANTED, as 13 Lopez Zazueta in Support • ¶ 2 containing information of Plaintiffs’ Motion for • ¶ 3 that may put Fresh 14 Protective Order, and • ¶ 5 Harvest in danger if 15 Exhibit • Exhibit disclosed publicly. 178-8 Exhibit E to the Highlighted portions GRANTED, as 16 Declaration of Dawson containing information Morton in Support of that may put Fresh 17 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Harvest in danger if Protective Order disclosed publicly. 18 187 Defendants’ Opposition Highlighted portions at: GRANTED, as 19 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for • 4:4–12 containing information Protective Order • 7:248:6 that may put Fresh 20 • 8:14–24 Harvest in danger if • 9:13–20 disclosed publicly. 21 • 10:6–14 22 187-1 Appendix of Declarations The following GRANTED, as in Support of Defendants’ highlighted portions: containing information 23 Opposition to Plaintiffs’ • Declaration of that may put Fresh Motion for Protective Eduardo Baltazar Harvest in danger if 24 Order ¶ 10 disclosed publicly. 25 • Declaration of Miguel Pineda Bernal ¶ 10 26 • Declaration of Robert Mussig ¶¶ 2–4; 27 Exs. A–D I. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ sealing motions are 2 GRANTED. 3 4 Dated: August 11, 2022 5 M. 6 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28