East West Bank v. Shanker

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 EAST WEST BANK, Case No. 20-cv-07364-WHO 8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 9 v. PREJUDICE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 10 SUKEERT SHANKER, UNDER SEAL 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 2 [12] 13 Plaintiff East West Bank (“EWB”) has filed a motion to seal in conjunction with its 14 Complaint. Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal [Dkt. No. 2]. EWB 15 seeks to seal Exhibit C to the Complaint, which is a Settlement Agreement between EWB and 16 defendant Sukeert Shanker that was signed shortly after Shanker left his employment at EWB. Id. 17 EWB also seeks to seal portions of the Complaint that refer to the Settlement Agreement. Id. In 18 its supporting declaration, EWB only states that the “parties agreed to keep the terms and amount 19 of the Settlement Agreement confidential.” Declaration of Warren Bleeker in Support of 20 Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal [Dkt. No. 2-1]. 21 This justification is insufficient to meet either the good case or compelling interest 22 standards for sealing. See UCP Int’l Co. Ltd. v. Balsam Brands Inc., 252 F. Supp. 3d 828 , 835 23 (N.D. Cal. 2017); Bernstein v. Target Stores, Inc., No. 13-CV-01018 NC, 2013 WL 5807581 , at 24 *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 28, 2013) (“The existence of a confidentiality provision, without more, does 25 not constitute good cause, let alone a compelling reason, to seal.”). As the Hon. Susan Illston 26 explained in Select Portfolio Servicing v. Valentino, a settlement agreement cannot be sealed 27 simply because the parties agreed to keep its terms confidential: declaration, which only asserts that the material should be sealed 1 because the parties agreed among themselves to make the settlement agreement confidential. This is insufficient. Not only have the 2 settling defendants asserted no compelling reason to seal the information, they have not even made a showing that some specific 3 harm or prejudice will result from its publication. The settling defendants’ motion does not address whether the non-settling 4 defendants will be able to view the “confidential” settlement information. That they agreed among themselves to keep the 5 settlement details private, without more, is no reason to shield the information from other non-settling parties to the case or the public at 6 large. 7 || No. C 12-0334 SI, 2013 WL 1800039 , at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013). 8 EWB’s request is also not “narrowly tailored”. Civ. L. R. 79-5(a). It seeks to seal the 9 entire Settlement Agreement but fails to present compelling reasons to justify such a broad 10 request. See United Tactical Sys., LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc., No. 14-CV-04050-MEJ, [11] 2017 WL 1881157 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2017) (parties “fail[ed] to show compelling reasons a 12 || justify sealing the Settlement Agreement in its entirety,” where the Settlement Agreement showed 13 that “not all of the information contained therein consists of trade secret, proprietary, or otherwise v 14 || protectable material,” and therefore “the document [could] be narrowly redacted to protect only © 15 || this information”) (emphasis added). 16 Accordingly, EWB’s motion to seal is DENIED without prejudice. EWB should review = 17 my Standing Order on Administrative Motions To File Under Seal on the District’s website, 18 || particularly with respect to the justification for filing under seal. As it is possible that EWB can 19 tailor its request and offer a compelling reason to seal the documents provisionally filed under 20 seal, I will not unseal any of these documents yet. Within fourteen (14) days of this order, EWB 21 may file a supplemental request and declaration in support of sealing these documents. The 22 || request shall be narrowly tailored, such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted 23 from public access, and the supporting declaration should articulate some specific harm or 24 || prejudice that would result from public disclosure of the sealable information. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: November 25, 2020 . [27] 28 illiam H. Orrick United States District Judge