Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00931/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00931-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MITCH DAVENPORT, as an individual 

and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

THE WENDY’S COMPANY, a foreign 

corporation, WENDY’S RESTAURANTS 

LLC, a foreign limited liability company, 

WENDY’S INTERNATIONAL, INC. (dba 

THE WENDY’S RESTAURANT 

SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES), a 

foreign corporation,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-0931 JAM DAD

ORDER

On July 31, 2015, this matter came before the undersigned for hearing of defendants’ 

unopposed request to seal and motion confirming confidential status of documents.

1

 Attorney

Charles Jones appeared telephonically on behalf of the plaintiff and attorneys Ashley Farrell and 

Mark Kemple appeared telephonically on behalf of the defendants. 

///// 

 

1

In an August 7, 2015 email to the court, the defendants narrowed the number of documents 

sought to be sealed pursuant to the parties’ agreement. In this regard, defendants are now seeking 

to file under seal only the documents identified in item 1 and item 3 of defendants’ notice of 

request to seal filed on May 29, 2015. (Dkt. No. 48.) This order concerns only those two items. 

Case 2:14-cv-00931-JAM-DB Document 70 Filed 08/17/15 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

There is a presumption in favor of public access to court records. See Phillips v. Gen. 

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). “[A]ccess to judicial records is not absolute.” 

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit 

has distinguished between the public’s interest in accessing court records filed in connection with 

nondispositive and dispositive motions. See In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 686 F.3d 1115 

(9th Cir. 2012); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1172; Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 

1122 (9th Cir. 2003); Phillips, 307 F.3d 1206. To seal documents filed in connection with a 

dispositive motion, parties must show there are “compelling reasons” for doing so. Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1180, 1182 (“[T]he proponent of sealing bears the burden with respect to sealing.”). 

To demonstrate compelling reasons justifying sealing of such documents, a party is “required to 

present articulable facts identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy and to show that 

these specific interests [overcome] the presumption of access by outweighing the public interest 

in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1181 (internal citations, quotation marks, and 

emphasis omitted). “When sealing documents attached to a dispositive pleading, a 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. at 1182 (internal citation, quotation marks, and 

emphasis omitted). See also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010), 

cert. denied Sub nom. Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Pintos, 562 U.S. 1134 (2011) (vacating 

and remanding district court’s denial of a sealing request where the court applied merely a good 

cause standard in addressing documents filed in connection with summary judgment motions). 

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and 

justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might 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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 

Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 589 (1978)). “The ‘compelling reasons’ standard is 

invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or 

protective order.” Id.

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00931-JAM-DB Document 70 Filed 08/17/15 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

On the other hand, parties seeking to file documents under seal in connection with a 

nondispositive motion must show only “good cause” for the requested sealing. Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1180; In re Midland, 686 F.3d at 1119 (“[A] particularized showing of ‘good cause’ under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient to preserve the secrecy of sealed discovery 

documents attached to non-dispositive motions.” (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138)). The 

presumption of public access is rebutted by a showing of good cause because “of the weaker 

public interest in nondispositive materials,” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678, and “[a]pplying a strong 

presumption of access to documents a court has already decided should be shielded from the 

public [by issuing a protective order] would surely undermine, and possibly eviscerate, the broad 

power of the district court to fashion protective orders.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213 (addressing an 

intervenor’s request to access confidential settlement information produced during discovery 

under a protective order). See also Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135; Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (discussing 

the parties’ interest in keeping discovery documents under seal in light of the public’s lesser 

interest in nondispositive motions); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. “For good cause to exist, the 

party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result . . . . 

If a court finds particularized harm will result from disclosure of information to the public, then it 

balances the public and private interests to decide whether a protective order is necessary.” 

Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210-11 (citations omitted).

Here, the undersigned finds that even under the compelling reason standard the documents 

sought to be sealed contain the type of trade secrets that courts have typically and appropriately 

allowed to be filed under seal and that the release of these documents could cause defendants

competitive harm. See Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (“courts have refused to permit their files to serve 

as . . . sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing); Apple 

Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“One factor that 

weighs in favor of sealing documents is when the release of the documents will cause competitive 

harm to a business.”); In re Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A 

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is 

/////

Case 2:14-cv-00931-JAM-DB Document 70 Filed 08/17/15 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

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over 

competitors who do not know or use it.”).

2

Accordingly, upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the 

reasons set forth on the record at the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ request to seal (Dkt. No. 48), as modified, is granted3;

2. Defendants shall contact the Clerk of the Court to submit the documents to be 

filed under seal; and

3. Defendants’ motion for an order confirming confidential status (Dkt. No. 49) is 

granted. 

Dated: August 17, 2015

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.civil\davenport0931.oah.073115.docx

 

2 Citation to this unpublished Ninth Circuit opinion is appropriate pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 

36-3(b).

3

 As explained at the July 31, 2015 hearing on the motion, this order is without prejudice to any 

ruling by the assigned District Judge. 

Case 2:14-cv-00931-JAM-DB Document 70 Filed 08/17/15 Page 4 of 4