Williams v. United Airlines, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13

15 CLARENCE WILLIAMS, 16 Plaintiff, No. C 19-02988 WHA

17 v.

18 UNITED AIRLINES, INC., ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 19 Defendant.

20 21 Our federal courts belong to the people, not to corporate America. The public has every 22 right and every interest in looking over our shoulders to see why and how we grant relief (or 23 not) and specifically what record justified (or not) the relief. So, our court of appeals has 24 recognized a strong presumption of public access to our records. Sealing a record requires, 25 without “hypothesis or conjecture,” a compelling factual basis that outweighs the public 26 interest in disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th 27 Cir. 2016) (emphasis added); Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178– 1 Plaintiff, with defendant’s support, moves to file under seal certain portions of the 2 summary judgment briefing and record. Defendant offers security-related reasons for sealing 3 the United Flight Manual and Pilot Bulletins. The request to seal substantive portions of the 4 Manual and Bulletins, and substantive discussions of what they contain related to airline 5 operation, is GRANTED. Defendant should be aware, however, that if this case proceeds to 6 trial, it may not be possible to clear the courtroom for discussion of the Manual and what it 7 contains. For example, the correct interpretation of certain portions of the Manual and 8 proposed changes to it are material disputes going to the heart of the case. Testimony on this 9 issue appears likely. 10 The requests to seal dates of birth, social security numbers, physical and email addresses, 11 phone numbers, and medical information are also GRANTED. The request to seal contents of 12 the “wiretapped” conversation is DENIED at this time. This issue was discussed in public 13 orders. United has not offered a compelling reason that outweighs public interest in record 14 supporting the summary judgment record; any violation of the Wiretap Act does not articulate 15 a compelling factual basis. United argues that revealing pay and benefits information would 16 hurt it competitively. United has not prevented compelling reasons that outweigh these 17 documents' relevance to the heart of the case, so the request is DENIED. Requests to seal 18 generic references to operations, other individuals, and job duties are DENIED notwithstanding 19 United’s claim that disclosures of operations would economically disadvantage it. As this is 20 nonspecific, it is not compelling. Moreover, this information’s relevance outweighs the stated 21 reason United wishes to maintain privacy (see Exh. C, below). For example, nothing at Melby 22 Decl. Exhibit E, Bates No. UNITED-WILLIAMS – 00075 shall be filed under seal. 23 This order will not rule on the copious requests individually, but will give several 24 examples of applying the above: 25 26 27 1 2 3 4 Docket Number Portion to be sealed Melby Decl., Exh. M Analysis of Alleged None. Economic Damages 5 6 Melby Decl., Exh. C Deposition of Clarence At Bates Nos. WILLIAMS 7 Williams, and exhibits thereto | 024908—024909, excluding the passage “this problem ... 8 trouble” at 024908. 9 10 All other requests are DENIED. 11 12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

(«4

15 Dated: March 4, 2021. 16

A - Phere LLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28