Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02499/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02499-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SANDY BELL and MARTIN GAMA, 

individually, and on behalf 

of other members of the 

general public similarly 

situated, and as aggrieved 

employees pursuant to the 

Private Attorneys General Act 

(“PAGA”), 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., Inc., a 

Delaware corporation; JOHN 

BROOKS, an individual; and 

DOES I through 10, inclusive,

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-02499-GEB-CKD 

ORDER DENYING PLANITIFFS’ 

SEALING REQUEST 

On September 25, 2015, Plaintiffs submitted for in 

camera consideration a Request to Seal Documents, declaration in 

support thereof, a proposed sealing order, and the 195 pages of 

documents sought to be sealed. The documents requested to be 

sealed are identified in a publicly filed Notice of Request to 

Seal Documents (“Notice”) as follows: “Exhibits C through J to 

the Declaration of Raul Perez filed in support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class Certification[] and an unredacted version of 

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points [and Authorities in support of 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification,] which makes specific 

reference to the content of the exhibits.” (Notice 2:9-12, ECF 

Case 2:12-cv-02499-DJC-CKD Document 65 Filed 09/29/15 Page 1 of 4
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 

No. 64.) Plaintiffs state these documents “reference or pertain 

to Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.’s (‘Defendant’ or ‘Home 

Depot’) corporate policies, procedures and practices concerning 

rest breaks, timekeeping and payroll policies, and opening and 

closing security procedures[,]” and “have been designated [as 

‘Confidential’] by Defendant pursuant to the parties[’] 

Stipulated Protective Order Governing Discovery entered by the 

Court on May 28, 2015.” (Pls.’ Req. to Seal 1:3-11.) 

Plaintiffs seek to file the referenced documents under 

seal, essentially arguing they are obligated to do so since “the[ 

referenced exhibits] were designated confidential by Home Depot.” 

(Id. at 1:19-20.) Plaintiffs state: “Defendant claims that the 

evidence described above . . . [is] confidential, proprietary, 

and or private information. Accordingly, there is good cause to 

file the above-referenced materials under seal.” However, 

Plaintiffs state in their Request to Seal that they “do not take 

a position as to the confidential nature of the[se] 

documents . . . , and in fact believe that many of them should 

not have been designated as such because they are readily 

distributed and made available to thousands of Home Depot 

employees.” (Id. at 1:16-19.) 

“Two standards generally govern [requests] to seal 

documents like the one at issue here.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). “[J]udicial records 

attached to dispositive motions [are treated] differently from 

records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Kamakana v. City & 

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). “Those 

who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to 

Case 2:12-cv-02499-DJC-CKD Document 65 Filed 09/29/15 Page 2 of 4
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 

dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that 

‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” Id. Whereas, “[a] ‘good 

cause’ showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed 

records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. “The Ninth 

Circuit has not yet addressed whether or not, or under what 

circumstances, a motion for class certification is a dispositive 

motion for purposes of deciding what standard applies on sealing 

motions, and . . . [district] courts in [the Ninth Circuit] have 

reached different conclusions.” Herskowitz v. Apple, Inc., No. 

12-cv-02131-LHK, 2014 WL 3920036, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2014) 

(internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). 

Here, Plaintiffs have neither shown which sealing 

standard applies to their sealing request, nor demonstrated that 

the applicable standard has been met. Even under the lesser “good 

cause” standard, “‘the party seeking protection bears the burden 

of showing specific prejudice or harm will result’ if the request 

to seal is denied.” Ross v. Bar None Enterprises, No. 2:13-cv00234-KJM-KJN, 2014 WL 2700901, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2014) 

(quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also Herskowitz, 

2014 WL 3920036, at *2 (“Even under the ‘good cause’ 

standard . . . , a party must make a ‘particularized showing’ 

with respect to any individual document in order to justify 

sealing the relevant document.” (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1180))). “‘Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 

examples or articulated reasoning’ are insufficient.” Ross, 2014 

WL 2700901, at *2 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. 

Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)). “[A]ny interest 

Case 2:12-cv-02499-DJC-CKD Document 65 Filed 09/29/15 Page 3 of 4
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 

justifying closure must be specified with particularity, and 

there must be [a showing] that the [requested sealing] is 

narrowly confined to protect that interest.” Perry v. City & 

Cnty. of S.F., No. 10-16696, 2011 WL 2419868, at *21 (9th Cir. 

2011) (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). 

For the stated reasons, Plaintiffs’ sealing request is 

DENIED. Further, since Local Rule 141(e)(1) prescribes that if a 

sealing “[r]equest is denied in full or in part, the Clerk will 

return to the submitting party the documents for which sealing 

has been denied,” the documents emailed to chambers for in camera 

consideration are treated as having been returned to the moving 

parties. See United States v. Baez–Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 

1507 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (indicating that when a judge denies a 

sealing request, the party submitting the request then decides 

how to proceed in light of the ruling). 

Dated: September 29, 2015 

 

Case 2:12-cv-02499-DJC-CKD Document 65 Filed 09/29/15 Page 4 of 4