Vega v. Honeywell International, Inc.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 25, 2021
• Docket: 3:19-cv-00663
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JULIE VEGA, Case No.: 3:19-CV-0663 W (BGS)

14 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 15 v. STRIKE EXHIBIT B TO TOBIN DECLARATION [DOC. 67] AND 16 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, REQUESTING FURTHER BRIEFING INC., 17 REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL Defendant. [DOC. 65, 68, 73, 76] 18

19 Defendant Honeywell International, Inc. (“Honeywell”) has filed an unopposed 20 motion to strike Exhibit B to the Declaration of Frank Tobin. (Mot. to Strike [Doc. 67] 21 1:12–14.) Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the motion to strike Exhibit B 22 [Doc. 64-4]. 23 In connection with Honeywell’s pending summary-judgment motion [Doc. 64], 24 Plaintiff Julie Vega and Honeywell have filed motions to file certain exhibits under seal, 25 and to file redacted briefs, as well as the parties’ joint statement of disputed and 26 undisputed facts. (See Def’s Mot. to Seal [Doc. 65]; Pl’s Mot. to Seal [Doc. 68]; Def’s 27 Mot. to Seal re. Reply [Doc. 73]; Jt. Mot. to File Jt. Statement Under Seal [Doc. 76].) 28 1 The basis for all of the motions is a protective order issued by the Magistrate Judge 2 pursuant to the parties’ November 1, 2019 joint motion [Doc. 19]. (See Protective Order 3 [Doc. 20].) Based on that order, the parties argue the exhibits and information sought to 4 be sealed or redacted “contain confidential information regarding Defendant’s business 5 practices and information implicating the privacy rights of other parties.” (See e.g. Def’s 6 Mot. to Seal re. Reply [Doc. 73] 1:18–21.) 7 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 8 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City 9 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 10 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Although access to judicial records is 11 not absolute, there is a “narrow range” of documents that have traditionally been kept 12 secret for policy reasons: “grand jury transcripts and warrant materials in the midst of a 13 preindictment investigation.” Id. (citing Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 14 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989)). The importance of this narrow range is that “[u]nless a 15 particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of 16 access’ is the starting point.” Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance 17 Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 18 “[T]he strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive 19 pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments.” 20 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. The reason is “because the resolution of a dispute on the 21 merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring 22 the ‘public’s understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.’” Id. 23 (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)). 24 “Thus, ‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a 25 dispositive motion.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). This standard applies “even if 26 the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective 27 order.” Id. Relying on “a blanket protective order is unreasonable and is not a 28 1 ‘compelling reason’ that rebuts the presumption of access.” Id. at 1183 (citing Foltz, 331 2 F.3d at 1138). 3 The compelling reasons standard imposes a high threshold on parties seeking to 4 maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions. Kamakana, 447 F.3d 5 1180. “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 6 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have 7 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private 8 spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. 9 at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact that the production of records 10 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation 11 will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d 12 at 1136). 13 In moving to seal documents attached to a dispositive motion, the party “must 14 articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings [citation] that 15 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as 16 the ‘public interest in understanding the judicial process.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178– 17 79 (citations omitted). A broad, categorical approach that “[s]imply mention[s] a general 18 category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the 19 documents, does not satisfy the burden.” Id. at 1184. 20 Here, the parties’ motions to seal do not come close to meeting the compelling 21 interest standard. As stated above, they rely solely on the stipulated protective order and 22 conclusory statement that the documents “contain confidential information regarding 23 Defendant’s business practices and information implicating the privacy rights of other 24 parties.” (See e.g. Def’s Mot. to Seal re. Reply [Doc. 73] 1:18–21.) 25 Moreover, having reviewed many of the documents in evaluating the issues raised 26 in Honeywell’s pending summary-judgment motion, it appears the parties will have a 27 difficult time overcoming the strong presumption of public access. Based on Kamakana, 28 assertions that documents contain information related to “confidential business practices” 1 || or “implicating the privacy rights of other parties” is not sufficient. For example, the 2 || parties seek to redact information related to an overseas trip and information from an 3 internal investigation regarding Vega’s removal from the trip. Presumably, the basis for 4 || this redaction is confidential business information. If so, the Court fails to understand 5 || how any of that information meets the compelling reasons standard. Nevertheless, before 6 || issuing an order on the pending motion, the Court will provide the parties another 7 || opportunity to satisfy the standard for sealing documents attached to the dispositive 8 || motion. 9 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that on or before March 12, 2021, 10 || the parties shall submit amended briefing in support of the motions to seal that satisfy the 11 |}compelling reasons standard discussed in Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1172. The briefs should 12 || also identify any documents that the parties no longer seek to be sealed. Failure to satisfy 13 compelling reasons standard will result in the document(s) being filed unsealed on the 14 docket. Any opposition to the parties’ amended briefing shall be filed on or before 15 || March 19, 2021. 16 Upon submission of the above briefing, the parties shall await further order of the 17 || Court. 18 || ISSO ORDERED 19 Dated: February 25, 2021 \ 20 pe lnLor 21 Hn. 7 omas J. Whelan 09 Unted States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28