Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-02252/USCOURTS-cand-3_01-cv-02252-49/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BETTY DUKES, PATRICIA SURGESON,

EDITH ARANA, DEBORAH GUNTER, and

CHRISTINE KWAPNOSKI,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

WAL-MART STORES, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. 3:01-cv-2252-CRB

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTIONS TO SEAL

Now before the Court are a series of administrative motions to file countless

documents under seal in connection with Wal-Mart’s four pending motions for summary

judgment. In the context of dispositive motions, as here, the Court starts with “a strong

presumption in favor of access to court records.” See Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto.

Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49

F.3d 1430, 143 (9th Cir.1995) (recognizing strong presumption in context of civil trial)). In

other words, “to retain any protected status for documents attached to a summary judgment

motion, the proponent must meet the ‘compelling reasons’ standard and not the lesser ‘good

cause’ determination.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th

Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). “The common law right of access, however, is

not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons for doing so.”

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 1129 Filed 06/05/15 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

2

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States District Court–

Northern District (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). In making the

determination whether to grant a motion to file under seal, “courts should consider all

relevant factors, including the public interest in understanding the judicial process and

whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous

or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets. . . . After taking all relevant factors

into consideration, the district court must base its decision on a compelling reason and

articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id.

(quoting Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434). This determination involves “balanc[ing] the

competing interests of the public and the party seeking to seal judicial records.” In re

Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir.

2012) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “A ‘good cause’ showing will not, without

more, satisfy a ‘compelling reasons’ test.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. The Ninth Circuit

has explained that “compelling reasons” that justify sealing court records generally exist

“when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use

of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or

release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589,

598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more,

compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136).

Turning to the motions at hand: Docket 1122 is Wal-Mart’s administrative motion to

seal certain documents it wishes to file in connection with its replies in support of its motions

for partial summary judgment. Docket 1070 is Wal-Mart’s administrative motion to seal

certain documents it wishes to file in connection with its motion for partial summary

judgment against Surgeson, Arana, and Gunter. Docket 1067 is Wal-Mart’s administrative

motion to seal certain documents it wishes to file in connection with its various motions for

partial summary judgment. Dockets 1113, 1085, and 1077 are Plaintiffs’ administrative

motion to seal certain documents they wish to file in connection with their Oppositions to

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 1129 Filed 06/05/15 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

3

Wal-Mart’s motions for partial summary judgment against Surgeson, Arana, and Gunter,

against Dukes, and against Kwapnoski, respectively. In each motion, Plaintiffs seek to seal

two groups of documents: those that have been designated as confidential by Wal-Mart

pursuant to a stipulated protective order, and those that Plaintiffs consider to contain

confidential personal information, including personnel information. Puzzlingly, both parties

attempt to justify the sealing of these documents, at most, under the “good cause” standard

that governs the sealing of documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, rather than the

higher “compelling reasons” standard that governs documents attached to a dispositive

motion. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir.

2006). 

In light of the legal standards discussed above, parties are to do the following with

respect to these motions to seal. To the extent that any party moved to file under seal

personal employment information such as disciplinary history, formal or informal

evaluations, wages, promotions, proffered explanations for pay discrepancies, etc., in any

form, for the employees who are parties to this case, that request concerns matters at the heart

of this litigation and is DENIED. All such information is ordered to be filed in the public

record, with the exception of contact information and social securities numbers of anyone

(i.e. information protected by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a)), which may be

redacted. The request to file under seal personal employment information of any non-party

to this litigation is GRANTED. See Cowan v. GE Capital Retail Bank, No.

13-CV-03935-BLF, 2015 WL 1324848, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2015) (ordering the sealing

of performance evaluations for two of the Defendant’s non-party employees). Redacted

portions are to be parsed as narrowly as possible to comply strictly with these guidelines. 

When in doubt, the information is to be filed publicly. 

Parties are to follow these same standards with respect to the redacted portions of their

briefs. By way of example, Plaintiffs’ brief in opposition to Wal-Mart’s motion for summary

judgment against Surgeson, Arana, and Gunter, at issue in the motion to seal at docket 1113,

is to be redacted as follows. Plaintiffs may file UNDER SEAL 10:21-22 (first selected

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 1129 Filed 06/05/15 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

27

28

4

clause); 12:27-28 (redact names only); 13:2-28; 14:1; 14:15-15:2 (information about nonparty employee only); 15:16-17, 22-24, 28; 16:1, 5, 10-11, 20-22, 28; 17:1; 18:3-15; 19:8;

21:13; 22:4-6; 26:21; 29:22-24; 33:28; 34:1; 36:22, 27; 37:1-2; 38:8-9; 39:4-5, 27-28;

40:19-22 (redact names only); 40:23-28; 41:1-17, 26; 44:18-21; 45:25; 46:1-4. Plaintiffs are

to FILE PUBLICLY 3:19-20; 10:22-23 (second selected clause); 8:14-15; 11:26-27;

12:13-26; 16:17; 20:15-22, 25-28; 21:16-17, 21-23; 30:2-4; 32:12-20; 40:6-19; 41:22-24;

42:1-9.

With respect to information that Wal-Mart seeks to seal on the grounds that it is

“commercial information,” Wal-Mart is directed to file with the Court a supplemental

declaration identifying a narrowly-tailored list of exhibits it alleges are sealable on those

grounds, why, and where in the record those exhibits may be found (copies of the exhibits

need not be re-filed). Before doing so, Wal-Mart is directed to revisit the compelling reasons

standard, as opposed to the good cause standard, that governs in the context of dispositive

motions. Documents or portions thereof that merely contain generalized descriptions of

markets, business challenges, employee roles, and the like will not qualify and should not be

listed—rather, Wal-Mart must identify only those trade secrets or other highly sensitive

information, strictly understood, that complies with the “compelling reasons” standard. The

supplemental declaration should include a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order as

required by Rule 79-5(d). Any material regarding “commercial information” that is not

identified in Wal-Mart’s supplemental declaration, or that is not supported by specific

“compelling reasons” for seal, will be ordered filed in the public record. 

All filings ordered in connection with this motion must be complete no later than June

17, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2015 CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:01-cv-02252-CRB Document 1129 Filed 06/05/15 Page 4 of 4