Sobaszkiewicz v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.

Opinion

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

7 HERMAN OVERPECK, et al., Case No. 18-cv-07553-PJH 8 Plaintiffs,

9 v. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO FILE 10 FEDEX CORPORATION, et al., UNDER SEAL 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 198 12

13 14 Before the court is defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.’s (“FedEx 15 Ground”) motion to file under seal. The documents FedEx Ground seeks to file under 16 seal are a sample base contract for linehaul services, a provider agreement between 17 FedEx Ground and G2 Logistics, Inc. (“G2”), a schedule for that provider agreement, and 18 settlement statements issued by FedEx Ground to G2 recording payments based on 19 plaintiff Overpeck’s driving. Id. at 3. The other parties do not oppose this request. 20 There is a general presumption in favor of public access to federal court records. 21 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “[T]he proponent of sealing 22 bears the burden with respect to sealing. A failure to meet that burden means that the 23 default posture of public access prevails.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 24 1172, 1182 (9th Cir. 2006). When a request to seal documents is made in connection 25 with a motion, the court must determine whether the parties are required to overcome 26 that presumption with “compelling reasons” or with “good cause.” A party seeking to seal 27 materials submitted with a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of 1 that there are compelling reasons to keep the documents under seal. Ctr. for Auto Safety 2 v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Conversely, if the motion 3 is only tangentially related to the merits, “a ‘particularized showing,” under the ‘good 4 cause’ standard of Rule 26(c) will ‘suffice[] to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed 5 discovery material attached to non-dispositive motions.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 6 (alteration in original) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 7 1135, 1138 (9th Cir. 2003)). 8 Here, defendant FedEx Ground argues that there is no compelling public interest 9 that would be hindered by sealing the documents filed under seal with the motion. Dkt. 10 198 at 3–4. FedEx Ground contends the compelling interest standard is met because the 11 documents to be sealed contain FedEx Ground’s confidential, proprietary, and trade 12 secret information. Id. at 4. 13 Defendant G2’s motion to dismiss, Dkt. 195, is more than tangentially related to 14 the merits of the case and therefore the court applies the compelling reasons standard to 15 the motion to file under seal. FedEx Ground seeks to file two contracts and a schedule to 16 one of the contracts entirely under seal. See Dkts. 198-3, 198-5, 198-7. For the reasons 17 discussed in this court’s order denying without prejudice FedEx Ground’s prior motion to 18 file under seal, see Dkt. 180 at 12–15, FedEx Ground’s proposed material to be sealed is 19 not narrowly tailored, see Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). If FedEx Ground were to demonstrate 20 compelling reasons to file under seal and the request is narrowly tailored, then it may file 21 those portions of its contract which are proprietary, confidential, or a trade secret under 22 seal. For that reason, the court will deny without prejudice the motion as to those 23 documents and permit FedEx Ground to refile its motion. 24 The fourth document FedEx Ground seeks to file under seal is of a different kind 25 than the contracts and schedule. Dkt. 198-9. This document includes settlement 26 statements that list information regarding financial transactions between FedEx Ground 27 and G2. Defendant argues that the settlement statements are confidential because they 1 information regarding negotiated rates for payment to G2 for its services. Dkt. 198 at 4. 2 According to FedEx Ground, its competitors could obtain an unfair advantage if they 3 know the rates at which FedEx Ground pays its contracted service providers (“CSPs”). 4 Unlike the contracts and schedule, the settlement statements show the rate at 5 which FedEx Ground pays its CSPs and a narrowly tailored redaction would encompass 6 the entire document. This document meets the compelling interest standard and sealing 7 the entire document is warranted. 8 Accordingly, the court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE FedEx Ground’s motion 9 with respect to the first through third documents and GRANTS FedEx Ground’s motion 10 with respect to the fourth document. FedEx Ground may refile its motion to file under 11 seal within fourteen days of the date on which this order is filed. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: December 15, 2020 14 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 15 United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27