Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A.

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 TANSEER KAZI, et al., Case No. 18-cv-04810-JCS

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 157, 160, 163 Defendant. 11

12 13 The parties filed three administrative motions to file certain materials under seal in 14 connection with their cross-motions for summary judgment. Where, as here, the underlying 15 motions are more than tangentially related to the merits of a case, a party seeking to file under seal 16 must show compelling reasons to do so. See generally Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 17 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). Under this Court’s local rules, requests to file under seal must be 18 narrowly tailored. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(B). 19 The Court is satisfied that, with respect to PNC’s January 15, 2021 administrative motion 20 (dkt. 157) and January 29, 2021 administrative motion (dkt. 163), PNC has shown compelling 21 reasons to seal narrowly tailored portions of the documents at issue. Those motions are 23 The Class moved to seal documents based solely on PNC’s designations of confidentiality, 24 noting its own position that none of the information at issue warrants sealing. See dkt. 160. PNC 25 filed a responsive declaration pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) on February 26, 2021—after 26 the deadline set by the local rule, but before the Court ruled on the administrative motion to seal or 27 the underlying summary judgment motions. See Rejali Decl. (dkt. 173). The motion is 1 exhibits not addressed by PNC, which the Class shall file unredacted in the public record no later 2 than September 27, 2021: 1-A, 1-B, 1-O, 1-P, and 1-Q. The administrative motion is GRANTED 3 IN PART as to the Class’s memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment, and the 4 || Class shall file a new public version of that document by the same date, redacting only the 5 |] passages addressed in Footnote 1 of PNC’s declaration. 6 With respect to Exhibit 1-R, the deposition of Michael Smiles, PNC proposed filing only a 7 twenty-page excerpt, consisting of the pages actually cited in the Class’s motion for summary 8 || judgment, rather than redacting all confidential information in the full 273-page transcript that the 9 Class sought to file under seal. This approach is reasonable under the circumstances. As PNC has 10 already filed that excerpt unredacted (dkt. 173-1), the Class need not file a new public version of 11 Exhibit 1-R. The remaining pages not addressed in the Class’s motion will not be considered part 12 || of the record of the case, except to the extent they may have been, or might later be, filed 5 13 separately elsewhere in the record.! 14 Both parties are reminded to comply with the requirement that unredacted documents filed 3 15 || provisionally under seal “must indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the a 16 || document that have been omitted from the redacted version,” a rule that both parties followed only 3 17 sporadically for the documents at issue. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(D). IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: September 21, 2021 20 6 Ze CZ J PH C. SPERO 21 ief Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ‘Tf the Class believes any other portion of that exhibit should be included in the record, it may file a response so stating no later than September 27, 2021.