Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02103/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02103-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

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

CHAD HERRON, individually, on 

behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEST BUY STORES, LP, a 

Virginia limited partnership; 

and Dell, Inc.;

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-02103-GEB-CKD

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

SEALING REQUESTS

On October 16, 2016, Plaintiff Chad Herron 

(“Plaintiff”) submitted for in camera consideration two sealing 

requests concerning his replies to Defendants Best Buy Stores, LP 

(“Best Buy”) and Dell Inc.’s oppositions to his class 

certification motion. Plaintiff submitted a sealing request, a 

proposed sealing order, and the documents sought to be sealed in 

connection with each request. 

The documents requested to be sealed are identified in 

two publicly filed “Notice[s] of Request[s] to Seal Documents and 

to File Redacted Versions” (“Notices”) as certain portions of 

Plaintiff’s reply briefs and certain portions of the October 14, 

2015 Report of William C. Sarsfield. (Notices, ECF Nos. 150, 

153.) Plaintiff asserts the specified portions of these documents

should be sealed because they “contain[], excerpt[], abstract[], 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 165 Filed 10/29/15 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

and/or reflect[] information . . . which this Court has already 

found should be properly sealed in consideration of [Plaintiff’s]

Motion for Class Certification [and each Defendant’s opposition

thereto].” (Pl.’s Reqs. to Seal 2.) Plaintiff also requests an 

“order permitting the filing of . . . redacted versions of” the 

referenced documents under Local Rule 140(b). (Id.) 

DISCUSSION

The September 10, 2015 Order Granting Joint Renewed 

Sealing Request discussed the two standards that generally govern 

sealing requests. (See Order 4:25-6:8, ECF No. 129; see also

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80

(9th Cir. 2006) (discussing the “good cause” and “compelling 

reasons” sealing standards).) Therefore, the standards are not 

repeated herein. 

The Court need not decide which sealing standard 

applies to the subject requests since Plaintiff has shown that 

certain portions of the referenced documents should be sealed 

under the heightened compelling reasons standard, and Plaintiff

has not satisfied the lesser good cause standard concerning the 

remainder of his requests.

A. Dr. Sarsfield’s Report 

Plaintiff has shown “compelling reasons” to seal each 

of the specified portions of Dr. Sarsfield’s report. The subject 

information concerns business information the public disclosure 

of which could be detrimental to Best Buy’s competitive 

interests. Williams v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 604 

(E.D. Cal. 2013) (“‘[S]ources of business information that might 

harm a litigant’s competitive standing’ often warrant protection 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 165 Filed 10/29/15 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

under seal.” (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 

589, 598 (1978))). 

B. Reply to Best Buy’s Opposition 

Plaintiff has shown “compelling reasons” to seal the 

specified portions of his Reply to Best Buy’s Opposition to 

Motion for Class Certification, with the exception of the 

following:

Page 22, line 5, starting with “in” through page 22, 

line 9, ending with “circulars”;

Page 22, line 24 through page 22, line 28; 

Page 23 – all.

Plaintiff has not shown even good cause to seal this

information. “Because of the strong presumption of access to 

[court] records, . . . [s]ealing orders . . . must be narrowly 

tailored.” Perry v. City & Cnty. of S.F., No. 10-16696, 2011 WL 

2419868, at *21 (9th Cir. 2011). Therefore, “any interest 

justifying closure must be specified with particularity, and 

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

narrowly confined to protect that interest.” Id. (internal 

quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). 

C. Reply to Dell, Inc.’s Opposition

Plaintiff has shown “compelling reasons” to seal the 

requested portions of his Reply to Dell, Inc.’s Opposition to 

Motion for Class Certification, with the exception of the 

following:

Page 25 – all.

Plaintiff has not shown even good cause to seal this 

information.

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 165 Filed 10/29/15 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

CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s sealing requests 

are granted in part, and denied in part. 

Plaintiff shall provide to the Clerk an electronic copy 

of the documents to be filed under seal as prescribed in Local 

Rule 141(e)(2)(i) within seven (7) days from the date this order 

is filed. 

Further, Plaintiff shall file the authorized redacted 

versions of his reply briefs and William Sarsfield’s October 14, 

2015 Report on the public docket within seven (7) days from the 

date this order is filed.

Dated: October 28, 2015

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 165 Filed 10/29/15 Page 4 of 4