UnifySCC v. Cody

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 UNIFYSCC, et al., Case No. 22-cv-01019-BLF

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE: ADMINSTRATIVE 9 v. MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL 10 SARA H. CODY, et al., SHOULD BE SEALED 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 80]

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s 14 Material Should Be Sealed in connection with their Motion to Certify Class. ECF No. 80. 15 Defendant County of Santa Clara (“County”) filed a statement in support of sealing certain 16 exhibits. ECF No. 84. The Court has considered the motion, and its ruling is laid out below. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 22 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 23 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 24 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 25 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 26 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 27 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 1 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 2 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 3 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 4 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 5 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 6 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as 7 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider 8 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing 9 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the 10 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, 11 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79- 12 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing 13 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any 14 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 This Court has previously determined that the compelling reasons standard applies to 17 motions to seal documents relating to class certification. See, e.g., Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser 18 LLC, No. 20-CV-02101-BLF, 2022 WL 847309, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022); Adtrader, Inc. v. 19 Google LLC, No. 17-CV-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020); Yan 20 Mei Zheng-Lawson v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 17-CV-06591-BLF, 2019 WL 3413253, at *2 21 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2019). 22 In Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be 23 sealed, they identify the highlighted portions of their motion to certify class and certain exhibits 24 attached to that motion as containing information that Defendants have designated as confidential. 25 ECF No. 80 at 2. The County filed a statement in support of sealing the highlighted portions of 26 Exhibit V (ECF No. 80-3) and the first two columns of Exhibit O (ECF No. 81-16). ECF No. 84 27 at 2. The County clarified that it did not designate as confidential Exhibit K (ECF No. 80-2) and 1 for sealing the highlighted portions of Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class, ECF No. 80-1; the 2 County’s proposed order does not include the motion to certify class, see ECF No. 84-2; and the 3 Court notes that the highlighted portions of the motion to certify class reference information from 4 Exhibit K. As such, the Court will DENY the motion to the extent that it requests sealing Exhibit 5 K (ECF No. 80-2) and Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class (ECF No. 80-1). 6 The County seeks to seal the highlighted portions of Exhibit V (ECF No. 80-3), which 7 contain employee numbers referenced in the Expert Declaration of Mr. Keith L. Mendes. ECF 8 No. 84 at 3. The County also seeks to seal the employee numbers and names in Exhibit O (ECF 9 No. 81-16), which is a spreadsheet containing information about employees including job 10 classification, accommodations, and employment status. Id. The County argues that this 11 information is personally identifiable information that other courts have found compelling reasons 12 to seal. Id. 2–3. 13 The Court agrees. Other courts have found compelling reasons to seal personally 14 identifiable information, such as names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses. See, e.g., 15 Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 19-CV-02658-LHK, 2021 WL 1951250, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 16 14, 2021) (collecting cases); see also Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., No. 17-CV-03962- 17 HSG, 2022 WL 1180214, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022) (sealing the names and addresses of 18 nonparty family members). Employee identification numbers are personally identifiable 19 information that can be used to obtain other sensitive information, such as an employee’s income, 20 leave status, exemption status, and vaccination status. ECF No. 84-3; see also Regents of Univ. of 21 California v. LTI Flexible Prod., Inc., No. 3:20-CV-08686-WHO, 2021 WL 4133869, at *11 22 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2021) (finding compelling reasons to seal employee identification numbers). 23 Moreover, the numbers are not material to the motion to certify class. As such, the Court finds 24 compelling reasons to seal the employee identification numbers at issue in this motion. 25 The Court further finds that the request to seal is “narrowly tailored to seal only the 26 sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). The parties seek only to seal the employee names and 27 identification numbers, and no other information in Exhibits O and V. 1 The Court rules as follows: ° ECF No. Portionsto Seal | Ruling 3 ECF No. | Exhibit K: Declaration | Highlighted DENIED because the County 80-2 of Mariah Gondeiro in | Portions submits the document can be 4 Support of Plaintiffs’ filed publicly. Motion for Class 5 Certification (the 6 “Gondeiro Decl.”) (Deposition Transcript 7 of Megan Doyle) ECF No. | Exhibit V: Gondeiro Highlighted GRANTED as containing 8 80-3 Decl. (Expert Portions personally identifiable Declaration of Mr. information. 9 Keith L. Mendes, CFA 10 In Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 11 Certification) ECF No. | Memorandum of Points | Highlighted DENIED because neither party %L 80-1 and Authorities in Portions supports sealing. 1 Support of Plaintiffs’ 3 Motion for Class 14 Certification S ECF No. | Exhibit O: Gondeiro Employee GRANTED as containing 15 81-16 Decl. (Excel Numbers in First personally identifiable 2 Spreadsheet) Column and information. a 16 Employee Names in Second Columns

a 18 Il. ORDER 19 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Administrative 20 || Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should Be Sealed in connection with their 21 |! Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 80) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs 22 |! are directed to file the unsealed versions of ECF Nos. 80-1 and 80-2 on the public docket within 23 10 days of the date of this Order. 24 29 Dated: October 20, 2023 26 7 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 28