Eidler v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 STACIA STINER, et al., Case No. 17-cv-03962-HSG 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 10 BROOKDALE SENIOR LIVING, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 276 [11] Defendants. [12] 13 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal documents in 14 support of their Motion for Class Certification. Dkt. No. 276 (“Mot.”). For the following reasons, 15 the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ administrative motion. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 20 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 21 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 22 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 23 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 24 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 25 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 26 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 27 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 1 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 2 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 3 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 4 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 5 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 6 Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 7 to file under seal must submit a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are 8 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. Civil 9 L.R. 79-5(b). The request must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” [10] Id. 11 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 12 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 13 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 14 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 15 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 , 1210–11 (9th 16 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 17 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 18 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 Plaintiffs move to file under seal portions of the exhibits and declarations filed in support 21 of their Motion for Class Certification. This Court follows numerous other district courts within 22 the Ninth Circuit in concluding that the compelling reasons standard applies to motions to seal 23 documents relating to class certification. See, e.g., Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV24 07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6387381 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2020) (collecting cases). 25 Plaintiffs seek to redact or file under seal various documents that have either been 26 designated by Defendants as “Confidential” pursuant to the parties’ Protective Order or discuss the 27 substance of such documents. See Mot. at 4. Plaintiffs only seek to redact or seal these 1 contend that there are “compelling reasons” to do so. Id. at 4-5. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, 2 Defendants, as the Designating Party, were required to file a statement and/or declaration 3 describing the applicable legal standard and the reasons for filing the documents under seal. Civil 4 L.R. 79-5(f). Defendants filed a declaration to that effect in September 2021, in which they 5 clarified that they seek to seal “far less material” than Plaintiffs conditionally filed under seal. See 6 Dkt. No. 304, Declaration of Jordan Vick in Support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File 7 Under Seal (“Vick Decl”) at 2. Specifically, Defendants seek to seal the following four categories 8 of exhibits. 9 First, Defendants seek to redact portions of certain exhibits attached to the Declaration of 10 Guy B. Wallace, see Dkt. No. 278-1, that contain contact and other personally-identifying 11 information for employees, residents, and/or individuals affiliated with third-party entities. Vick 12 Decl. ¶ 4(a). This personally-identifying information includes email addresses, telephone 13 numbers, and names. Id. Courts in this District routinely find compelling reasons to seal 14 personally-identifying information that has minimal relevance to the underlying causes of action. 15 See Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 19-CV-02658-LHK, 2021 WL 1951250 , at *3 (N.D. Cal. 16 May 14, 2021) (“This Court has found compelling reasons to seal personally identifiable 17 information.”); Am. Automobile Ass'n of N. Cal., Nev., & Utah, 2019 WL 1206748 , at *2 (N.D. 18 Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) (finding compelling reasons to seal personally identifiable information, 19 “including names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses”); Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard 20 Co., 2014 WL 233827 , at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) (granting motion to seal personal 21 information, including a home address, phone number, and email address). The Court concurs 22 here and accordingly GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion as to Exhibits 8-11, 16, 31-35, 37-42, 46, and 23 50-51 to the Declaration of Guy B. Wallace (Dkt. No. 278-1), as referenced in Vick Decl. ¶ 4(a). 24 Second, Defendants seek to redact portions of certain exhibits attached to the Declaration 25 of Guy B. Wallace and portions of the Declaration of Cristina Flores that, they contend, contain 26 confidential, non-public proprietary information developed by entities affiliated with Defendants 27 at their own expense for their own use. Vick Decl. ¶ 4(b). This information includes, among 1 System (PSS) Online,” Brookdale’s Personal Service Assessment and Personal Service Plan 2 Interpretive Guidelines, and deposition testimony regarding Brookdale’s policies, procedures, and 3 practices. See id.; Dkt. No. 276-7. Defendants contend that allowing its competitors to obtain this 4 information would cause competitive injury to its affiliated entities. Vick Decl. ¶ 4(b). The Court 5 finds compelling reasons to seal this proprietary information. See Snapkeys, 2021 WL 1951250 , at 6 *2-3 (granting motion to file under seal confidential information regarding technology because 7 competitive harm would result from disclosure of such information); Baird v. BlackRock 8 Institutional Trust Co., N.A., 403 F. Supp. 3d 765 , 792 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (granting motion to seal 9 sensitive and proprietary information); Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., No. 16-CV10 00119, 2017 WL 11527607 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 2017) (granting motions to seal highly 11 confidential and proprietary information that was not publicly available and could result in unfair 12 competitive advantage to competitors). The Court accordingly GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion as to 13 Exhibits 16-17, 24, 29, and 51-52 to the Declaration of Guy B. Wallace, and the Declaration of 14 Cristina Flores (ECF No. 278-4), as referenced in Vick Decl. ¶ 4(b). 15 Third, Defendants seek to redact pages BKD1599048-57 of Exhibit 11 attached to the 16 Declaration of Guy B. Wallace. Vick Decl. ¶ 4(c). Exhibit 11 is a copy of a document that 17 includes Defendants’ contract with “Bus Finders,” dated March 22, 2016. See Dkt. No. 276-7 ¶ 18 24. This contract contains a confidentiality provision which generally states that the information it 19 contains is proprietary, confidential, and may not be disclosed without the written consent of Bus 20 Finders. Vick Decl. ¶ 4(c). Defendants contend that the disclosure of this information could harm 21 not only its competitive standing, but also that of its affiliated entities and Bus Finders. Id. Courts 22 in this District have found compelling reasons to seal confidential information regarding a party’s 23 business partners where the disclosure of that information could harm the party’s competitive 24 standing. See Snapkeys, 2021 WL 1951250 , at *3; FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-220-LHK, [25] 2019 WL 95922 , at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (granting motion to seal under the compelling to 26 the extent it may harm the party or third parties’ “competitive standing and divulges terms of 27 confidential contracts, contract negotiations, or trade secrets.”). The Court comes to the same 1 Wallace, as referenced in Vick Decl. § 4(c). 2 Fourth, Defendants seek to seal Exhibits 47-49 attached to the Declaration of Guy B. 3 || Wallace. Vick Decl. {] 4(d). These documents are detailed corrective action and action plan forms 4 for Defendants’ employees. Defendants contend, and the Court agrees, that these documents 5 || constitute confidential employment records in which Defendants’ employees have a reasonable 6 || expectation of privacy. Id. Disclosure of this confidential information to the public could result in 7 unnecessary embarrassment and injury to those employees. Moreover, narrow redactions of the 8 || employees’ personally-identifying information would not sufficiently protect their privacy 9 || interests because the documents include descriptions of issues that could still permit others to 10 || readily ascertain their identities. The Court accordingly finds compelling reasons to seal these 11 confidential employment records and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion as to Exhibits 47-49 and 51-52 12 to the Declaration of Guy B. Wallace, as referenced in Vick Decl. ¥] 4(d). 5 13 Finally, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion as to any other material filed conditionally 14 || under seal solely pursuant to the parties’ Protective Order. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c) (“Reference to a 3 15 stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is 16 not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”). 2 17 || 1. CONCLUSION Z 18 Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 19 || PART. By no later than April 6, 2022, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification and associated 20 || exhibits shall be refiled in accordance with this Order pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. The 21 parties are reminded that all documents filed in support of a motion should be filed as attachments 22 || to that motion, not filed separately. [23] 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: 3/30/2022 26 Abaspurel 5 Mb |). 7 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge