Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02502/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02502-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

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

ANTONIO ESQUIVEL and BEATRIZ

ESQUIVEL, individually, on

behalf of all others

similarly situated, and on

behalf of the general public,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK 

OF AMERICA CORPORATION,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-02502-GEB-KJN

ORDER REGARDING JULY 31, 2015 

SEALING REQUEST

On July 31, 2015, the parties submitted for in camera 

consideration a Stipulated Request to Seal Class Certification 

Opposition Documents, a declaration in support thereof, the 

documents sought to be sealed, a proposed redacted version of 

Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification (“Opposition”), and a proposed sealing order. 

The parties seek to file the following documents under 

seal for a period of no less than six years: an unredacted 

version of Defendants’ Opposition, the Declaration of Sandra 

Evans in Support thereof, and exhibits 1-3, 5, 7, and 13-17 to 

the Declaration of Alyssa Sussman in support thereof. The parties

argue:

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 87 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 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

2

All of [these] documents have been 

designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to the 

Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order and 

there is good cause to seal these documents. 

Some of these documents contain [Defendants’] 

confidential and proprietary 

information . . . that is not available to 

[their] competitors or the public at large. 

Public disclosure of this information would 

harm [Defendants] and put [them] at a 

competitive disadvantage. Other of these 

documents contain personal financial 

information of Plaintiffs. 

(Notice Stipulated Req. to Seal (“Notice”) 1:24-2:2, ECF No. 85.) 

Specifically, the parties argue:

These documents contain information that 

constitutes a trade secret, and/or reflecting 

non-public business strategies, and/or 

confidential competitive information which, 

if disclosed, would result in competitive 

harm to [Defendants]. Courts regularly find 

that confidential and proprietary information 

is properly designated confidential and 

should be filed under seal.

Exhibits 1-3, 5, 7, and 13-17[,] and the 

Declaration of Sandra Evans in support of the 

Opposition meet this standard. These 

documents contain information related to 

[Defendants’] loan servicing and modification 

practices that are proprietary to 

[Defendants]. [Defendants’] loan servicing 

and modification practices are complex 

business operations that depend on a 

sophisticated body of internal policies and 

procedures that require significant time and 

human resources to develop and thus have 

substantial value to the bank. Filing them on 

a public docket would disadvantage 

[Defendants] by making information about 

[their] proprietary, internal policies 

available to other institutions that have not 

invested the time and resources necessary to 

develop them.

[Defendants] take[] reasonable efforts 

to maintain the secrecy of this valuable and 

sensitive information, which is not generally 

known to the public or to [Defendants’]

competitors. Because the disclosure of these 

documents would be harmful to [Defendants] by 

providing [their] competitors the opportunity 

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 87 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 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

3

to create or modify their own practices and 

procedures to match (or beat) [Defendants’], 

good cause exists to file these documents 

under seal.

In addition, Exhibits 5, 7, 13, and 17 

contain individual personal information that 

is protected from disclosure, borrower 

specific and/or credit applicant specific 

information that is derived using nonpublic 

personal information, and/or information 

regarding Plaintiffs’ banking or lending 

relationships, including . . . information 

regarding [Plaintiffs’] mortgage or credit 

history.

(Id. at 4:4-4:10, 5:6-6:8 (internal quotation marks, citations, 

and alteration omitted).) 

The parties also “request an order permitting 

[Defendant] to file a redacted version of its Opposition . . . , 

because portions of the brief reference or discuss confidential 

or proprietary information contained in the aforementioned 

exhibits and declaration.” (Notice 2:5-9.)

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Two standards generally govern [requests] to seal 

documents . . . .” 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 nondispositive motions.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). “[A] party seeking to seal a 

judicial record attached to a dispositive motion or one that is 

presented at trial must articulate ‘compelling reasons’ in favor 

of sealing.” Williams v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 

604 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). In 

contrast, “a party seeking to seal a document attached to a nondispositive motion need only demonstrate ‘good cause’ to justify 

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 87 Filed 08/06/15 Page 3 of 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

4

sealing.” Williams, 290 F.R.D. at 604 (citing Pintos, 605 F.3d at 

678).

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 Enters., No. 2:13-cv-00234-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)). The movant “must make a ‘particularized 

showing’ with respect to any individual document in order to 

justify [its] sealing . . . .” Herskowitz v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-

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

(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)).

The Court need not decide which standard applies to the 

instant request since the parties have not provided sufficient 

justification to seal any document under the lesser good cause 

standard.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants have not shown good cause to seal Exhibits 2 

and 3 (portions of certain deposition transcripts) and Sandra 

Evans’ Declaration. Although these documents reference 

Defendants’ loan servicing and modification practices, the 

information discussed is too general to warrant sealing. 

Therefore, Defendants’ request to seal these documents is DENIED.

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 87 Filed 08/06/15 Page 4 of 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

5

Defendants also have not shown good cause to seal 

Exhibits 14-16 (sample Bank of America loan modification 

agreements). “Although [Defendants] identif[y] the [documents] as 

proprietary and confidential, [Defendants have] not provide[d]

reasons beyond the boilerplate references to competitive 

disadvantage if the [documents] were publically available.” Welle 

v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 3:12-cv-3016 EMC 

(KAW), 2013 WL 6055369, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013). “[W]hile 

[Defendants] assert[] competitive harm may result, [they] ha[ve] 

not shown why that is likely to be the case.” Id.; see also

Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CV 12-06030 SI, 2013 WL 

5441973, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013) (“Simply mentioning a 

general category of privilege without any further elaboration or 

any specific linkage with the documents does not satisfy the 

burden. Neither do broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by 

specific examples or articulated reasoning.” (internal quotation 

marks, citations, and alteration omitted)). Therefore, 

Defendants’ request to seal Exhibits 14-16 is DENIED.

The remainder of Defendants’ June 2, 2015 sealing 

request, i.e., the request to seal Exhibits 1, 5, 7, 13, and 17, 

is overbroad since Defendants have not shown why targeted 

redactions would not adequately protect the privacy interests 

concerning credit histories and personal financial information.1

“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 

 

1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) authorizes parties to redact, 

without obtaining a court order, portions of a person’s financial-account 

number. 

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 87 Filed 08/06/15 Page 5 of 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

6

*21 (9th Cir. 2011). Therefore, “any interest justifying closure 

must be specified with particularity, and there must be [a 

showing] that the [sealing requested] is narrowly confined to 

protect that interest.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, 

and emphasis omitted). “For this reason, any sealing order 

must . . . use less restrictive alternatives that do not 

completely frustrate the public’s . . . right[] of access.” Id.

For example, “[i]n many cases, courts can accommodate [privacy] 

concerns by redacting sensitive information rather than [sealing] 

the materials entirely.” United States v. Bus. of Custer 

Battlefield Museum & Store, 658 F.3d 1188, 1195 n.5 (9th Cir. 

2011); see also Press-Enterprise Co. v. Sup. Ct., 464 U.S. 501, 

513 (1984) (“Those parts of the transcript reasonably entitled to 

privacy could have been sealed without such a sweeping 

order . . . .”). Therefore, Defendants’ request to seal Exhibits 

1, 5, 7, 13, and 17 is DENIED.

Further, Defendants’ request to file a redacted version 

of their Opposition is DENIED since Defendants have not shown 

that any referenced exhibit or declaration should be sealed. 

Dated: August 5, 2015

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 87 Filed 08/06/15 Page 6 of 6