Day v. GEICO Casualty Company

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 JESSICA DAY, Case No. 21-cv-02103-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING GEICO'S 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL 10 GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., Re: ECF Nos. 172, 175 Defendants. [12] 13 Presently before the Court are two administrative motions to seal filed by Defendants 14 GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO General Insurance Company, and GEICO Indemnity 15 Company (“GEICO”) on September 15, 2023. The first seeks to seal portions of GEICO’s motion 16 for summary judgment and supporting materials, see ECF No. 172, and the second seeks to seal 17 portions of GEICO’s motion to decertify the class and supporting materials, see ECF No. 175. 18 Plaintiff Jessica Day (“Plaintiff”) does not oppose GEICO’s requests. See Pl.’s Consol. St. of 19 Non-Opp’n, ECF No. 178. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS each of GEICO’s 20 administrative motions to seal. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARD 22 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 23 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 24 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 , 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 25 U.S. 589 , 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 26 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 27 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 1 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming 2 the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 3 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 4 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 Courts in this district apply the compelling reasons standard to motions to seal associated 6 with both motions for summary judgment and motions for class decertification. See, e.g., Hadley 7 v. Kellogg Sales Co., No. 16-CV-04955, 2019 WL 12495009 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2019) 8 (applying compelling reasons standard to motion to seal materials related to motions for summary 9 judgment and class decertification); West v. Palo Alto Housing Corp., No. 17-CV-00238, 2019 10 WL 13254313 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2019) (applying compelling reasons standard to sealing 11 request relating to motion for summary judgment because “[a] motion for summary judgment is 12 by definition a dispositive motion [that] relates to the merits of the case”); True Health 13 Chiropractic Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 13-cv-02219, 2022 WL 6584485 , at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14 23, 2022) (“Because these documents are related to decertification of the class, which is more than 15 tangentially related to the merits of the underlying action, the Court applies the “compelling 16 reasons” standard in evaluating the motions to seal.”). 17 Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such 18 ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 19 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598), such as: “to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, 20 circulate libelous statements,” id.; to “release trade secrets,” id.; or “as sources of business 21 information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing,” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 22 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598–99). Courts in this circuit have held that confidential 23 business information in the form of “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential 24 licensing negotiations, and business strategies” satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. 25 Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-4810, 2020 WL 2838812 , at *1 (N.D. Cal. 26 June 1, 2020); see also, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding 27 compelling reasons for sealing “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 1 05062-EJD, 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147 , 1162 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling reasons may 2 exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product3 specific financial information, customer information, internal reports[.]’”) (citation omitted); 4 Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. v. MiTek Inc., No. 20-cv-06957-VKD, 2023 WL 350401 , at *2–3 5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2023) (granting sealing request under compelling reasons standard of 6 “confidential business development and internal business strategy documents and intellectual 7 property of MiTek, including internal MiTek research and development information”). 8 A protective order sealing the documents during discovery may reflect a court’s previous 9 determination that good cause—a lower threshold than that required for finding a compelling 10 reason to seal—exists to keep the documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a 11 blanket protective order that allows the parties to designate confidential documents does not 12 provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine whether each particular document should remain 13 sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a 14 party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, 15 or portions thereof, are sealable.”). 16 In addition, the Local Rules of this Court require that all requests to seal be “narrowly 17 tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). That is, the sealing motion 18 must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a 19 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 20 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 21 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1). 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 The Court notes at the outset that with the exception of the various phrasing differences 24 between the motion for summary judgment and the motion for decertification, GEICO’s sealing 25 requests are identical. That is, both of GEICO’s administrative motions to seal seek to redact 26 identical language in the declarations submitted by Russell Ward in support of each motion, as 27 well as the same six exhibits submitted in support of each motion. See ECF Nos. 172, 175; see 1 in each motion are either the same document, or substantially the same content.”). Accordingly, 2 the Court combines the analyses of GEICO’s two administrative motions to seal. 3 Having reviewed GEICO’s arguments and the documents at issue, as well as the 4 declarations of GEICO’s counsel submitted in support of each administrative motion to seal, see 5 ECF Nos. 172-1, 175-1, the Court is satisfied that each of GEICO’s sealing requests is narrowly 6 tailored to seal confidential business and financial information, the disclosure of which would 7 cause competitive harm to GEICO by allowing other insurers to obtain a unilateral advantage by 8 learning about GEICO’s business operations. See In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x. at 569. 9 Accordingly, the Court finds that each of GEICO’s requests to seal meet the compelling reasons 10 standard, and rules on the requests as set forth in the chart below. [11] Document Public Proposed Sealing or Result Reasoning [12] ECF No. / Redactions 13 (Sealed ECF No.) 14 GEICO’s 171 / Highlighted portions GRANTED. Contains confidential Memorandum in (172-3) at 1:7–9, 3:19–23, information regarding 15 Support of Its 5:1–2, 5:16–6:1, GEICO’s internal Motion for 10:16–17, 11:14–16, financial results and [16] Summary 18:11–13. sensitive proprietary 17 Judgment business issues. 18 GEICO’s 174 / Highlighted portions GRANTED Contains confidential Memorandum in (175-3) at 4:21–5:6, 10:15– information regarding [19] Support of Its 16, 14:16–17, 15:14– GEICO’s internal 20 Motion to 16. financial results and Decertify sensitive proprietary 21 business issues. 22 Declarations of 171-2, Highlighted portions GRANTED. Details GEICO’S Russell Ward in 174-1 / at 2:11–3:7. confidential financial [23] Support of (172-5, information. 24 GEICO’s motion 175-4) for summary 25 judgment and motion to 26 decertify. [27] 1 Document Public Proposed Sealing or Result Reasoning ECF No./ | Redactions 2 (Sealed ECF No.) 3 Exhibit E to 171-2, Entire document. GRANTED. | Details GEICO’S Declarations of 174-1 / confidential financial 4 | | Russell Ward (172-5, information. 5 175-4) 6 Exhibit G to 171-2, Entire document. GRANTED. | Details GEICO’S Declarations of 174-1 / confidential financial 7 Russell Ward (172-5, information. 175-4) [8] 9 Exhibit K to 171-1, Entire document. GRANTED. | Consists of a non-public Declarations of =| 174-2/ settlement stipulation. 10 Damon N. (172-4, Vocke 175-5) [11] Exhibit BB to 171-1, Entire document. GRANTED. | Contains GEICO’s Declarations of | 174-2/ confidential financial & 13 Damon N. (172-4, and business Vocke 175-5) information. Exhibit CC to 171-1, Entire document. GRANTED. | Contains GEICO’s 15 || | Declarations of | 174-2/ confidential financial A 16 Damon N. (172-4, and business Vocke 175-5) information. [17] Exhibit DD to 171-1, Entire document. GRANTED. | Contains GEICO’s Z 18 Declarations of 174-2 / confidential financial Damon N. (172-4, and business 19 Vocke 175-5) information. [22] 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 21, 2023 [26] BETH LABSON FREEMAN 27 United States District Judge