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: ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

10 SARA H. CODY, et al., [Re: ECF No. 93] 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is Defendant County of Santa Clara’s (“County”) Administrative Motion 14 to File Under Seal certain exhibits in support of its Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify 15 Class. ECF No. 93. The Court has considered the motion, and its ruling is laid out below. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 18 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 20 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 21 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 22 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 23 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 24 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 25 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 26 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 27 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 1 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 2 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 3 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 4 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 5 II. DISCUSSION 6 This Court has previously determined that the compelling reasons standard applies to 7 motions to seal documents relating to class certification. See, e.g., Prescott v. Reckitt Benckiser 8 LLC, No. 20-CV-02101-BLF, 2022 WL 847309, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2022); Adtrader, Inc. v. 9 Google LLC, No. 17-CV-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2020); Yan 10 Mei Zheng-Lawson v. Toyota Motor Corp., No. 17-CV-06591-BLF, 2019 WL 3413253, at *2 11 (N.D. Cal. July 29, 2019). 12 The County’s motion seeks to seal portions of certain exhibits in support of its opposition 13 to Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class because those exhibits include County employees’ personally 14 identifying information, including names, employee identification numbers, phone numbers, email 15 addresses, and home addresses. See, e.g., ECF No. 93 at 1–3. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition 16 to the motion. 17 The Court finds that the County has demonstrated compelling reasons to seal the 18 personally identifying information in its exhibits. Other courts have found compelling reasons to 19 seal personally identifying information, such as names, addresses, phone numbers, and email 20 addresses. See, e.g., Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 19-CV-02658-LHK, 2021 WL 1951250, 21 at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021) (collecting cases); see also Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., 22 No. 17-CV-03962- HSG, 2022 WL 1180214, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022) (sealing the names 23 and addresses of nonparty family members). The majority of what the County seeks to seal 24 includes names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses. The remainder of what the 25 County seeks to seal includes employee identification numbers, for which there are compelling 26 reasons to seal because employee identification numbers are personally identifying information 27 that can be used to obtain other sensitive information, such as an employee’s income, leave status, 1 California v. LTI Flexible Prod., Inc., No. 3:20-CV-08686-WHO, 2021 WL 4133869, at *11 2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2021) (finding compelling reasons to seal employee identification numbers). 3 Moreover, the personally identifying information is not material to the motion to certify class. 4 Thus, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal the personally identifying information in the 5 County’s exhibits. 6 The Court further finds that the request to seal is “narrowly tailored to seal only the 7 sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). The County seeks only to seal the personally identifying 8 information described above, and no other information in the exhibits. 9 The Court rules as follows:

10 ECF No. Document Portions to Seal Ruling 11 93-3 Declaration of Bryan Highlighted GRANTED as containing Anderson in Support of Portions personally identifying 12 Defendants’ Opposition information. to Motion for Class 13 Certification (the “Anderson Decl.”) 14 Exhibit 1 15 108-1 Anderson Decl. Exhibit Highlighted GRANTED as containing 3 Portions personally identifying 16 information. 108-2 Anderson Decl. Exhibit Highlighted GRANTED as containing 17 4 Portions personally identifying information. 18 108-3 Anderson Decl. Exhibit Highlighted GRANTED as containing 19 5 Portions personally identifying information. 20 93-7 Anderson Decl. Exhibit Highlighted GRANTED as containing 10 Portions personally identifying 21 information. 22 93-8 Anderson Decl. Exhibit Highlighted GRANTED as containing 14 Portions personally identifying 23 information. 93-9 Anderson Decl. Exhibit Highlighted GRANTED as containing 24 15 Portions personally identifying information. 25 93-10 Anderson Decl. Exhibit Highlighted GRANTED as containing 26 16 Portions personally identifying information. 27 93-11 Anderson Decl. Exhibit Highlighted GRANTED as containing information. 1 93-12 Anderson Decl. Exhibit Highlighted GRANTED as containing 2 19 Portions personally identifying information. 3 93-13 Declaration of Megan Highlighted GRANTED as containing Doyle in Support of Portions personally identifying 4 Defendants’ Opposition information. to Motion for Class 5 Certification (the 6 “Doyle Decl.”) Exhibit 9 7 93-14 Declaration of Jeffrey Highlighted GRANTED as containing Draper in Support of Portions personally identifying 8 Defendants’ Opposition information. to Motion for Class 9 Certification (the 10 “Draper Decl.”) Exhibit 2 11 93-15 Declaration of Mathew Highlighted GRANTED as containing Fisk in Support of Portions personally identifying 12 Defendants’ Opposition information. 13 to Motion for Class Certification (the “Fisk 14 Decl.”) Exhibit 3 93-16 Declaration of Highlighted GRANTED as containing 15 Christopher Grumbos Portions personally identifying in Support of information. 16 Defendants’ Opposition 17 to Motion for Class Certification (the 18 “Grumbos Decl.”) Exhibit 8 19 93-17 Declaration of Sonia Highlighted GRANTED as containing Menzies in Support of Portions personally identifying 20 Defendants’ Opposition information. 21 to Motion for Class Certification (the 22 “Menzies Decl.”) Exhibit 3 23 93-18 Menzies Decl. Exhibit Highlighted GRANTED as containing 24 4 Portions personally identifying information. 25 93-19 Menzies Decl. Exhibit Highlighted GRANTED as containing 5 Portions personally identifying 26 information. 27 I. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant County of Santa 2 Clara’s (“County”) Administrative Motion to File Under Seal related to its Opposition to 3 Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class (ECF No. 93) is GRANTED. 4 5 Dated: October 30, 2023

7 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

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