Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06591/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06591-3/pdf.json

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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

YAN MEI ZHENG-LAWSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06591-BLF 

OMNIBUS ORDER RE 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 109, 111, 121, 127]

Before the Court are four administrative motions to file documents under seal: 

(1) Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Documents in Support of Motion 

for Class Certification (ECF 109); (2) Parties’ Stipulated Request for Order to Seal Certain 

Confidential Documents (ECF 111); (3) Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 

Documents in Support of Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections to and Motion to 

Exclude Evidence (ECF 121); and (4) Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of 

Hearing on Class Certification Motion (ECF 127).

The motions are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set forth below. 

 I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the 

merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for 

Case 5:17-cv-06591-BLF Document 129 Filed 12/16/19 Page 1 of 8
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 

tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 

1097.

Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of 

sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part 

must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-

5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain 

documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are 

sealable.” Id.

Where the moving party requests sealing of documents because they have been designated 

confidential by another party or a non-party under a protective order, the burden of establishing 

adequate reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party or non-party. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). 

The moving party must file a proof of service showing that the designating party or non-party has 

been given notice of the motion to seal. Id. “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of 

the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a 

responsive declaration . . . and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the 

Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later 

than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).

 II. DISCUSSION

This Court follows numerous other district courts within the Ninth Circuit in concluding 

that the compelling reasons standard applies to motions to seal documents relating to class 

certification. See Wetzel v. CertainTeed Corp., No. C16-1160JLR, 2019 WL 1236859, at *3 

(W.D. Wash. Mar. 18, 2019) (“[S]ince Chrysler, district courts that have addressed the issue have 

regularly found that the compelling reasons standard applies to motions to seal exhibits attached to 

motions for class certification.”); McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., No. 17-CV-00986-BASAGS, 2018 WL 3629945, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2018) (“[C]ourts apply the compelling reasons 

standard to a motion to seal a document filed in connection with a motion for class certification.”); 

Case 5:17-cv-06591-BLF Document 129 Filed 12/16/19 Page 2 of 8
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In re Seagate Tech. LLC, 326 F.R.D. 223, 246 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (applying compelling reasons 

standard to documents relating to class certification); Weisberg v. Takeda Pharm. U.S.A., Inc., No. 

CV 18-784 PA (JCX), 2018 WL 6252458, at *2 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2018) (“Because the Motion for 

Class Certification is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the compelling 

reasons standard applies in determining whether to grant the Application to Seal.”). Applying the 

compelling reasons standard, the Court sets forth its rulings on the sealing motions as follows.

A. Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Documents in 

Support of Motion for Class Certification (ECF 109)

Plaintiffs have filed a sealing motion with respect to certain documents on the basis that 

they contain information designated by Defendants as confidential. The documents in question are 

Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Class Certification, the Rebuttal Declaration of 

Stefan Boedeker, and certain exhibits to the Declaration of Robert S. Green in support of 

Plaintiff’s Reply. As the designating parties, Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that 

compelling reasons exist to seal. Defendants seek more limited redactions than those proposed by 

Plaintiffs, and Defendants demonstrate the existence of compelling reasons for their proposed 

redactions through their Response to Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion and attached declarations 

of Jeffrey B. Margulies, Ashley Hack, and W. Joshua Hoffman. See ECF 112. 

Thus, Plaintiffs’ sealing motion is GRANTED as to the narrower subset of redactions 

requested by the designating parties, Defendants, and otherwise is DENIED. The Court’s ruling is 

summarized in the following chart. 

ECF 

No.

Document(s) to be Sealed Ruling Reasoning

109-4 Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief in 

Support of Motion for 

Class Certification

GRANTED as to 

1:21; 1:15; 2:5-9 ; 

2:23-24; 4:10; 4:12; 

4:14-16; 4:23-25; 

4:27; 5:10-11; 10:21-

24.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

marketing competitor analysis,

confidential sales data, internal 

training information, vendor 

relationships, and business 

objectives. Hack Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, 

ECF 112-2; Hoffmann Decl. ¶¶ 

2-7, ECF 112-3.

Case 5:17-cv-06591-BLF Document 129 Filed 12/16/19 Page 3 of 8
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

109-6 Rebuttal Declaration of 

Stefan Boedeker

GRANTED as to ¶ 

6(1), (7), (8), (9), 

(10); ¶ 7(a), (a)(i), 

(a)(ii), (b), (b)(iv), 

(c)(i), (c)(fn. 33), 

(c)(iii), (d), (d)(i), 

(c)(fn. 34), (d)(ii), 

(e), (e)(i), (f), (f)(i), 

(g).

Information reflects Defendants’ 

internal training information, 

internal confidential data 

regarding traffic visits to 

Toyota.com, confidential sales 

data, vendor distribution data, 

and confidential survey data. 

Hack Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, ECF 112-2; 

Hoffmann Decl. ¶¶ 2-7, ECF 

112-3.

109-

10

Exhibit 1 to Reply 

Declaration of Robert S. 

Green

GRANTED as to 

7:13; 7:18; 12:21; 

16:19; 16:22; 17:19.

Information reflects internal

confidential data regarding

traffic visits to Toyota.com. 

Hack Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, ECF 112-2; 

Hoffmann Decl. ¶¶ 2-7, ECF 

112-3. 

109-

12

Exhibit 2 to Reply 

Declaration of Robert S. 

Green

GRANTED as to 

entire exhibit.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

internal confidential training 

materials. Hack Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, 

ECF 112-2; Hoffmann Decl. ¶¶ 

2-7, ECF 112-3.

109-

14

Exhibit 3 to Reply 

Declaration of Robert S. 

Green

GRANTED as to 

entire exhibit.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

internal confidential training 

materials. Hack Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, 

ECF 112-2; Hoffmann Decl. ¶¶ 

2-7, ECF 112-3.

109-

20

Exhibit 8 to Reply 

Declaration of Robert S. 

Green

GRANTED as to 

highlighted portions 

redacted by Plaintiffs.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

competitor analysis. Hack Decl. 

¶¶ 2-6, ECF 112-2; Hoffmann 

Decl. ¶¶ 2-7, ECF 112-3.

109-

22

Exhibit 9 to Reply 

Declaration of Robert S. 

Green

GRANTED as to 

highlighted portions 

redacted by Plaintiffs.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

competitor analysis, internal 

training information, and internal 

confidential data regarding traffic 

visits to Toyota.com. Hack Decl. 

¶¶ 2-6, ECF 112-2; Hoffmann 

Decl. ¶¶ 2-7, ECF 112-3. 

109-

24

Exhibit 10 to Reply 

Declaration of Robert S. 

Green

DENIED. Sealing 

not sought by 

Defendants, 

designating parties.

109-

26

Exhibit 11 to Reply 

Declaration of Robert S. 

Green

GRANTED as to 

highlighted portions 

redacted by Plaintiffs.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

competitor analysis and internal 

training information. Hack Decl. 

¶¶ 2-6, ECF 112-2; Hoffmann 

Decl. ¶¶ 2-7, ECF 112-3.

Case 5:17-cv-06591-BLF Document 129 Filed 12/16/19 Page 4 of 8
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

109-

28

Exhibit 12 to Reply 

Declaration of Robert S. 

Green

GRANTED as to 

16:24-25; 18:6; 

18:23; 35:1; 35:5; 

35:14; 35:18; 35:21; 

36:3; 36:13-15; 

36:17-18; 37:12.

Information reflects confidential 

sales data and vendor 

relationships. Hack Decl. ¶¶ 2-6, 

ECF 112-2; Hoffmann Decl. ¶¶ 

2-7, ECF 112-3.

109-

32

Exhibit 15 to Reply 

Declaration of Robert S. 

Green

GRANTED as to 

highlighted portions 

redacted by Plaintiffs.

The Court granted leave to seal 

the proposed redactions in a prior 

motion. See ECF 98. 

109-

35

Exhibit 17 to Reply 

Declaration of Robert S. 

Green

DENIED. Sealing 

not sought by 

Defendants, 

designating parties.

B. Parties’ Stipulated Request for Order to Seal Certain Confidential Documents 

(ECF 111)

The parties have filed a joint sealing motion with respect to materials that they 

inadvertently filed on the public docket. The documents in question have been locked by the 

Clerk’s Office pending the Court’s ruling on the joint sealing motion. Some of the documents 

have been filed multiple times on the docket with different portions redacted. Consequently, the 

same documents are listed multiple times in the chart below, with different ECF numbers. The

joint sealing motion is GRANTED.

ECF 

No.

Document(s) to be 

Sealed

Ruling Reasoning

84-3 Memorandum of Points 

and Authorities in 

Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification

GRANTED as to 1:6 

and 6:6.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

confidential sales data and 

competitor analysis that the Court 

has sealed at ECF 98.

85-1 Declaration of Robert 

Green in Support of 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Class Certification

GRANTED as to 2:1; 

2:3; 2:19; 2:23; 2:27; 

and 3:3.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

confidential sales data and 

competitor analysis that the Court 

has sealed at ECF 98.

Case 5:17-cv-06591-BLF Document 129 Filed 12/16/19 Page 5 of 8
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

87-3 Corrected Memorandum 

of Points and Authorities 

in Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification

GRANTED as to 1:6 

and 6:6.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

confidential sales data and 

competitor analysis that the Court 

has sealed at ECF 98.

89-4 Corrected Memorandum 

of Points and Authorities 

in Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification

GRANTED as to 1:6. Information reflects Defendants’ 

confidential sales data and 

competitor analysis that the Court 

has sealed at ECF 98.

89-4 Deposition of W. Joshua 

Hoffman

GRANTED as to 

3:18-19; 39:1; 39:11; 

and 48:23.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

confidential sales data and 

competitor analysis that the Court 

has sealed at ECF 98.

104 Corrected Memorandum 

of Points and Authorities 

in Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification

GRANTED as to 1:6; 

5:5; 5:8.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

confidential sales data and 

competitor analysis that the Court 

has sealed at ECF 98.

104-3 Declaration of Robert 

Green in Support of 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Class Certification

GRANTED as to 2:1; 

2:3; 2:19; 2:23; 2:27; 

and 3:3.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

confidential sales data and 

competitor analysis that the Court 

has sealed at ECF 98.

104-7 Exhibit 4 to Declaration 

of Robert Green in 

Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification (Deposition 

of W. Joshua Hoffman)

GRANTED as to 

3:18-19; 39:1; 39:11; 

and 48:23.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

confidential sales data and 

competitor analysis that the Court 

has sealed at ECF 98.

104-8 Exhibit 5 to Declaration 

of Robert Green in 

Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification (Deposition 

of Ashley Hack)

GRANTED as to 

49:19. 

Information reflects Defendants’ 

internal business practices, 

material that the Court has sealed 

at ECF 98.

104-15 Exhibit 12 to Declaration 

of Robert Green in 

Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification (Edge 

Competitive 

Comparison)

GRANTED as to 

TOYZHENG00004929.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

confidential competitor analysis 

that the Court has sealed at ECF 

98.

Case 5:17-cv-06591-BLF Document 129 Filed 12/16/19 Page 6 of 8
7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

104-19 Exhibit 16 to Declaration 

of Robert Green in 

Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification 

(Correspondence)

GRANTED as to 

entire exhibit.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

confidential competitor analysis 

that the Court has sealed at ECF 

98.

104-37 Exhibit 34 to Declaration 

of Robert Green in 

Support of Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class 

Certification

GRANTED as to 

TOYZHENG00008013.

Information reflects Defendants’ 

internal business practices, 

material that the Court has sealed 

at ECF 98.

C. Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Seal Documents in Support of 

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections/Motion to Exclude (ECF 121)

Defendants move to seal two exhibits submitted in support of their response to Plaintiffs’ 

objections to, and motion to exclude, certain of Defendants’ evidence. The motion is GRANTED, 

as Defendants have demonstrated compelling reasons for sealing.

ECF 

No.

Document(s) to be Sealed Ruling Reasoning

121-4 Exhibit A to the 

Declaration of Jeffrey B. 

Margulies in Support of 

Defendants’ Response to 

Plaintiffs’ Objections to 

and Motion to Exclude 

Evidence Submitted by 

Defendants in Opposition 

to Motion for Class 

Certification (August 12, 

2019 Letter)

GRANTED s to 

highlighted portions 

Information reflects Defendants’

marketing competitor analysis 

and confidential training 

information. Margulies Decl. ¶ 

2, ECF 121-1. Information 

previously has been sealed by the 

Court at ECF 98.

121-4 Exhibit D to the 

Declaration of Jeffrey B. 

Margulies in Support of 

Defendants’ Response to 

Plaintiffs’ Objections to 

and Motion to Exclude 

Evidence Submitted by 

Defendants in Opposition 

to Motion for Class 

Certification (Deposition 

of W. Joshua Hoffmann)

GRANTED as to 5:9-

11; 12:3; 12:21;

12:24; 13:2; 13:11;

13:13; 14:5-7; 20:4-

5; 20:14; 21:2;

22:24; 23:9; 23:16;

23:20; 70:14; 70:19.

Information reflects Defendants’

marketing competitor analysis 

and confidential data reflecting 

internal training downloads. 

Margulies Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 121-1. 

Information previously has been 

sealed by the Court at ECF 98.

Case 5:17-cv-06591-BLF Document 129 Filed 12/16/19 Page 7 of 8
8

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

D. Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of Hearing on Class 

Certification Motion (ECF 127)

Defendants move to seal portions of the transcript of the hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Class Certification. The motion is GRANTED.

ECF 

No.

Document(s) to be Sealed Ruling Reasoning

126 Transcript of Hearing on 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Class Certification

GRANTED as to 

7:14; 7:19; 8:23-25; 

9:1; 9:3; 9:5; 9:19-21; 

13:20; 13:23; 14:23; 

16:15-16; 16:21; 

16:22; 18:19; 19:4-6; 

19:17; 25:8; 25:11; 

25:13; 26:18; 26:20-

21; 26:24; 29:20; 

29:23; 30:14; 32:23; 

32:25; 33:1; 43:10; 

43:14; 43:19; 43:23.

Information reflects Defendants’

marketing competitor analysis 

and confidential data reflecting 

internal training downloads. 

Margulies Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 127-1. 

Information previously has been 

sealed by the Court at ECF 98.

 III. ORDER

(1) Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Reply Documents in Support 

of Motion for Class Certification (ECF 109) is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART as set forth herein;

(2) The Parties’ Stipulated Request for Order to Seal Certain Confidential Documents 

(ECF 111) is GRANTED as set forth herein; 

(3) Defendants’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents in Support of 

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Objections to and Motion to Exclude Evidence 

(ECF 121) is GRANTED as set forth herein; and 

(4) Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of Hearing on Class 

Certification Motion (ECF 127) is GRANTED as set forth herein.

Dated: December 16, 2019 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-06591-BLF Document 129 Filed 12/16/19 Page 8 of 8