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. 5:22-cv-01019-BLF
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 10 SARA H. CODY, et al., [Re: ECF No. 162] 11 Defendants.
12 13 Before the Court is Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Seal re: Plaintiffs’ Reply 14 Evidence, which was filed by Defendant Santa Clara County (“County”). ECF No. 162. For the 15 reasons stated below, Defendants’ motion is GRANTED. 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 & Cty. 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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 21 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 22 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 23 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 24 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 25 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 26 1092, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 27 Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 1 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to 2 court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often 3 unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotations 4 omitted)). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower 5 “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. This standard requires a 6 “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is 7 disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 8 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 9 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 10 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 11 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 12 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 13 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 14 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 15 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 16 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 17 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 18 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 Defendant County of Santa Clara filed Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Seal on 21 October 1, 2024. ECF No. 162. The County seeks to seal unredacted versions of Exhibits 22 identified in the Declaration of Bryan K. Anderson in support of the motion, which were 23 submitted in redacted form by the County in support of objections to Plaintiffs’ reply exhibits at 24 ECF No. 156-1 through 156-21 as stated in Defendants’ Reply in Support of Motion for Summary 25 Judgment. The County writes that the information should be sealed because the exhibits “reflect[] 26 employee identifying information, namely employee names and personal email addresses.” ECF 27 No. 162 at 1. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition to the motion. 1 documents. Other courts have found compelling reasons to seal personally identifying 2 information, such as names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses. See, e.g., Snapkeys, 3 Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 19-CV-02658, 2021 WL 1951250, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021) 4 (collecting cases); see also Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc., No. 17-CV-03962, 2022 WL 5 1180214, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022) (sealing the names and addresses of nonparty family 6 members). The majority of what the County seeks to seal includes names, addresses, phone 7 numbers, and email addresses. The remainder of what the County seeks to seal includes employee 8 identification numbers, for which there are compelling reasons to seal because employee 9 identification numbers are personally identifying information that can be used to obtain other 10 sensitive information, such as an employee’s income, leave status, exemption status, and 11 vaccination status. See Regents of Univ. of California v. LTI Flexible Prod., Inc., No. 3:20-CV- 12 08686, 2021 WL 4133869, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2021) (finding compelling reasons to seal 13 employee identification numbers). Moreover, the personally identifying information is not 14 material to the merits of the motion. Thus, the Court finds compelling reasons to seal the 15 personally identifying information in the County’s exhibits. 16 The Court further finds that the request to seal is “narrowly tailored to seal only the 17 sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). The County seeks only to seal the personally identifying 18 information described above, and no other information in the exhibits. 19 ECF No. Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling 20 21 93-3 Exhibit 1 to Highlighted Portions in Granted, as containing personally Declaration of columns 1 and 2 identifying information. 22 Bryan K. Anderson (List of Class (Employee names and 23 Members) identifying numbers)
24 25 26 27 156-10 Exhibit 2 to Highlighted portions Granted, as containing 1 Declaration of personally identifying 2 Bryan K. Anderson (Employee names and information. (Email with a non- email) 3 class member submitted by 4 Plaintiffs with redactions at ECF 5 No. 156-10) 6 156-11 Exhibit 3 to Highlighted portions Granted, as containing 7 Declaration of personally identifying Bryan K. Anderson (Employee names and information. 8 (Email with a non- email) class member 9 submitted by 10 Plaintiffs with redactions at ECF 11 No. 156-11)
12 156-12 Exhibit 4 to Highlighted portions Granted, as containing Declaration of personally identifying 13 Bryan K. Anderson (Employee names and information. 14 (Email with a non- email) class member 15 submitted by Plaintiffs with 16 redactions at ECF 17 No. 156-12)
18 156-13 Exhibit 5 to Highlighted portions Granted, as containing Declaration of personally identifying 19 Bryan K. Anderson (Employee names and information. (Email with a non- email) 20 class member 21 submitted by Plaintiffs with 22 redactions at ECF No. 156-13) 23 156-14 Exhibit 6 to Highlighted portions Granted, as containing 24 Declaration of personally identifying 25 Bryan K. Anderson (Employee names and information. (Email with a non- email) 26 class member submitted by 27 Plaintiffs with 156-15 | Exhibit 7 to Highlighted portions Granted, as containing 2 Declaration of personally identifying 3 Bryan K. Anderson |(Employee names and information. (Email with a non- |email) A class member submitted by 5 Plaintiffs with redactions at ECF 6 No. 156-15) 4 8 Il. ORDER 9 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Administrative 10 Motion to Seal (ECF No. 162) is GRANTED. 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UnifySCC v. Cody (UnifySCC v. Cody) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.