Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376-43/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON CAMPBELL and

SARAH SOBEK, individually,

and on behalf of all other

similarly situated current

and former employees of 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,,

NO. CIV. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, O R D E R

a Limited Liability Partnership;,

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendant.

 /

Pending before the court are four motions: ECF Nos. 255, 258,

394 and 402. Two motions for summary judgment, ECF Nos. 255 and

258, were filed on October 27, 2008. The first is a Motion for

Summary Judgment filed by plaintiffs on defendant’s alleged breach

of legal duty under California Labor Code Sections 510, 1194,

226.7, 512, 226, 203, and 218.6. The second is a Motion for Summary

Judgment filed by defendant on the claims asserted by plaintiff

Jason Campbell. On March 11, 2009, the court issued an order

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 492 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

granting a separate summary judgment motion filed by plaintiffs,

and granting in part a summary judgment motion filed by defendants.

In the March 11 order, the court held that the plaintiff class

members are non-exempt employees. The court certified that matter

for interlocutory appeal. ECF No. 390. Plaintiffs filed a Motion

for Reconsideration of other portions of the March 11, 2009 order.

ECF No. 402. Defendants appealed the court’s holding that the

members of the plaintiff class are non-exempt employees to the

Ninth Circuit. 

On March 27, 2009, this court issued an order stating that the

Ninth Circuit decision on the appeal “may heavily impact the

remainder of this case,” and the court vacated the hearing on the

two summary judgment motions filed on October 27, 2008, as well as

on the motion for reconsideration. ECF No. 425.

On June 15, 2011, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion

reversing and remanding this court’s holding that the plaintiff

class members are non-exempt. ECF No. 481. The Ninth Circuit issued

its mandate on August 5, 2011. 

It is unclear to the court whether the Ninth Circuit’s opinion

affects the two pending motions for summary judgment, and the

motion for reconsideration. The court determines that these

motions, as presented, are moot and are DENIED. If either party

believes that the motions are not moot, it may re-notice the

motions for hearing. 

Additionally, defendant has filed a motion to seal its

Objections to Evidence Submitted in Support of Plaintiffs’

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 492 Filed 09/30/11 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3

Opposition to Motion to Decertify Class. ECF No. 394. When a party

seeks to seal a document that is part of the judicial record, it

must show “compelling reasons” for doing so. Pintos v. Pac.

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). See also

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th

Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,

1135 (9th Cir. 2003). “A party seeking to seal judicial records

must show that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual

findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the

public policies favoring disclosure.’” Pintos, id. (quoting

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court tentatively GRANTS

plaintiffs’ motion. Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that this

sealing is tentative. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186. The court will

revisit whether these documents should be permanently sealed at a

later time, when it is possible to perform the fact specific

analysis required by Foltz.

Accordingly, the court ORDERS as follows:

[1] The following motions are DENIED as MOOT: ECF Nos.

255, 258, and 402. If either party wishes, it may renotice the motions for hearing.

[2] Defendant’s Motion to Seal, ECF No. 394 is GRANTED.

The filing shall be tentatively SEALED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2011.

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 492 Filed 09/30/11 Page 3 of 3