Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01082/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01082-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 195
Nature of Suit: Contract Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL 

SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of 

themselves and others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware 

corporation; and Does 1 through 10, 

inclusive,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

(Doc. No. 128, 134, 138)

The parties have filed two motions to seal in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for 

class certification: (1) Defendant Ford Motor Company’s (“Ford”) February 6, 2024 

motion to seal documents attached to Plaintiffs’ December 1, 2023 Motion for Class 

Certification, (Doc. No. 128), and (2) Ford’s February 22, 2024 motion to seal in 

connection with its opposition to Plaintiffs’ class certification motion, (Doc. No. 134).

Plaintiffs also filed a February 22, 2024 motion to seal in connection with its opposition to 

Ford’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. No. 138). The Court must apply a different 

standard in analyzing the Class Certification and Summary Judgment Motions to Seal and 

will therefore address them separately. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds 

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 1 of 14
2 

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

the instant matter suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument.

Accordingly, the Court VACATES the hearings related to these motions set for June 6, 

2024. For the reasons stated herein, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN 

PART the motions to seal. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs raise several claims against Ford for alleged latent defects, which cause 

abnormal and premature wearing and/or loosening of the suspension parts, resulting in 

“violent shaking,” causing drivers to lose control of the Vehicles, and having difficulty 

steering during their operation under normal driving conditions or speeds. (See First 

Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, Doc. No. 44.) 

On December 19, 2023, the parties entered into a protective order permitting the 

parties to designate as “CONFIDENTIAL” information that qualifies for protection under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). (Doc. No. 79 at 2–3.) The protective order also 

permits the parties to designate as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES

ONLY” documents they, in good faith, believe contain trade secrets or other confidential 

research or information. (Id. at 3.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 

‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 

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

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to 

overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate 

justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 

1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of 

the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 

(quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). The court must consider these interests and “base its 

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 2 of 14
3

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without 

relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 

1434 (9th Cir. 1995)) (internal quotations omitted).

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 

presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 

depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 

tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 

809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). When the underlying motion is more than tangentially 

related to the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the 

underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” 

standard applies. Id. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that 

“specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. 

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad 

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will 

not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

Unless the denial of a motion for class certification would constitute the death knell 

of a case, “the vast majority of []courts within this circuit” treat motions for class 

certification as non-dispositive motionsto which the “good cause” sealing standard applies. 

Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 2013 WL 1435223, *1 (citing In re NCAA Student—

Athlete Name and Likeness Licensing Litig., 2012 WL 6561088 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2012)).

Compelling reasons1 for sealing information exist “when such ‘court files might 

have 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, 435 U.S. at 598). Trade secrets “may consist 

of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s 

1 In making the below ruling, the Court assumes that any document that meets the “compelling reasons” 

standard also meets the lower “good cause” standard under Kamakana.

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 3 of 14
4

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain advantage over competitions who 

do not know or use it.” Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b. Because trade secrets 

concern proprietary and sensitive business information not available to the public, sealing 

may be warranted where disclosure would harm a litigant’s competitive standing. Nixon, 

435 U.S. at 598. The Ninth Circuit has explicitly recognized that compelling reasons exist 

for the sealing of “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms” 

of license agreements. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008).

III. CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTIONS TO SEAL

Denial of class certification would not constitute the “death knell” of this action. 

This is not a situation in which the individual plaintiffs have suffered de minimis harm.2

As Ford acknowledges, Plaintiffs allege damages of $5,000,000, in the aggregate, on 

individual claims. (See Doc. No. 44, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Consolidated Complaint, 

¶ 12.) Given the amount at stake, they would presumably have financial incentive to pursue 

individual litigation even if they could not do so on behalf of a class. The Court therefore 

finds the underlying motion for class certification non-dispositive, and documents attached 

to it must only meet the “good cause” standard to be filed under seal.

A. Motion to Seal, Doc. No. 128

Ford filed its Motion to Seal on February 6, 2024 and asks the Court to seal 101 

documents attached to Plaintiffs’ December 1, 2023 Motion for Class Certification to 

protect “Ford’s confidential business information or trade secrets.” (Doc. No. 128.) The 

documents have been categorizes as regarding (1) Design and Development, (2) Root 

2 The Court notes it previously applied the “compelling reasons” standard in ruling on a previous motion 

to seal in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (See Doc. No. 132.) However, the 

Court is persuaded by Ford’s argument that because Plaintiffs’ allegations do not constitute de minimis

harm, the “good cause” standard should apply. (See Doc. No. 128 at 6–7.) The Court further notes that 

because Plaintiffs previously failed to comply with the Civil Case Procedures of the Honorable Anthony 

J. Battaglia, U.S. District Judge, and the law of this Circuit, by failing to support their motion with factual 

evidence under either standard, the Order denying Plaintiffs’ motion to seal without prejudice stands. (See

Doc. No. 132.)

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 4 of 14
5

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

Cause Analysis and Investigation, (3) Warranty, and (4) Cost and Financial Information. 

(Id. at 4.) Plaintiffs filed a notice non-opposition to the motion. (See Doc. No. 133.)

Ford argues that public release of these categories of information would give a 

competitive advantage to its competitors. First, Ford claims that the “research, 

development, and analysis described is undertaken at great expense to Ford” and that it 

“would suffer competitive harm in the marketplace if this information was publicly 

released.” (Doc. No. 128 at 10.) The Court agrees that the details of Ford’s design and 

development are valuable and that Ford could suffer competitive harm if they were publicly 

revealed. Nevertheless, the Court also finds that some of Ford’s sealing requests are not 

narrowly tailored to this goal. Most notably, Ford has sought to redact any statement by 

Ford employees acknowledging the existence of the suspension defect. The Court finds 

that Ford’s concerns regarding publicly releasing engineering considerations do not 

constitute a compelling reason for sealing these statements. The filings in this case are full 

of Plaintiffs’ arguments and suggestions that Ford knew or should have known of the 

suspension defect. In these circumstances, it is unlikely that similar statements from Ford 

employees that offer only general opinions would cause competitive harm to Ford. See 

Philips v. Ford Motor Co., No. 14-CV-02989-LHK, 2016 WL 7374214, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 

Dec. 20, 2016).

The Court addresses each specific document in the tables below:

Design & Development

Judicial Record Document Description Court’s Ruling

Doc. No. 124-11, Exhibit 7;

Bates No. 101387

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-13, Exhibit 9; 

Bates No. 97486 

Minutes from a May 23, 2001, 

meeting

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-14, Exhibit 10; 

Bates No. 103746

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-15, Exhibit 11; 

Bates No. 98659

Shimmy data evaluation on the 

P131 Super Duty model truck

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-16, Exhibit 12; 

Bates No. 99432

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-18, Exhibit 14; 

Bates No. 98850

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 5 of 14
6

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

Doc. No. 124-20, Exhibit 16; 

Bates No. 99648

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-24, Exhibit 20; 

Bates No. 107370

Chart labeled COMPETITIVE 

TGW DATA

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-28, Exhibit 26; 

Bates No. 101756

Document entitled 2010MY 

P473 Front Suspension 

Alternatives

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-30, Exhibit 28; 

Bates No. 115773

PowerPoint presentation entitled 

P558 Super Duty Super Fueler 

Impro

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-32, Exhibit 30; 

Bates No. 74018

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. Nos. 124-37, -95, Exhibits

45, 104; Bates No. 62578

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-38, Exhibit 46; 

Bates No. 67886

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-40, Exhibit 48; 

Bates No. 66227

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-42, Exhibit 50; 

Bates No. 66341

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-43, Exhibit 51; 

Bates No. 69298

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-44, Exhibit 52; 

Bates No. 69259

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-45, Exhibit 53; 

Bates No. 44438

Report entitled P558 Small 

Angle Steering Disturbances

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-46, Exhibit 54; 

Bates No. 44619

PowerPoint presentation entitled 

P558 SAWF

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-47, Exhibit 55; 

Bates No. 43172

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-48, Exhibit 56; 

Bates No. 42296

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-49, Exhibit 57; 

Bates No. 74507

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-50, Exhibit 58; 

Bates No. 73100

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-51, Exhibit 59; 

Bates No. 44598

PowerPoint presentation entitled 

Comments from Glen

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-52, Exhibit 60; 

Bates No. 72645

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-53, Exhibit 61; 

Bates No. 44702

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-54, Exhibit 62; 

Bates No. 73214

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 6 of 14
7

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

Doc. No. 124-55, Exhibit 63; 

Bates No. 74010

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-56, Exhibit 64; 

Bates No. 50722

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-57, Exhibit 65; 

Bates No. 74433

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-58, Exhibit 66; 

Bates No. 44341

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-59, Exhibit 67; 

Bates No. 44345

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-60, Exhibit 68; 

Bates No. 45539

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-61, Exhibit 69; 

Bates No. 45903

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-62, Exhibit 70; 

Bates No. 50772

PowerPoint presentation entitled 

P558 SAWF

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-63, Exhibit 71; 

Bates No. 74873

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-64, Exhibit 72; 

Bates No. 75656

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-65, Exhibit 73; 

Bates No. 46061

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-66, Exhibit 74; 

Bates No. 86842

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-68, Exhibit 76; 

Bates No. 75259

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-69, Exhibit 77; 

Bates No. 46064

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-70, Exhibit 78; 

Bates No. 78494

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-71, Exhibit 79; 

Bates No. 48354

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-72, Exhibit 80; 

Bates No. 49787

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-73, Exhibit 81; 

Bates No. 80607

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-74, Exhibit 82; 

Bates No. 30656

Chart, entitled 040100 Frt 

Suspension P558 2017

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-75, Exhibit 83; 

Bates No. 79333

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 7 of 14
8

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

Doc. No. 124-76, Exhibit 84; 

Bates No. 65923

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-77, Exhibit 85; 

Bates No. 70110

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-78, Exhibit 86; 

Bates No. 69841

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-79, Exhibit 87; 

Bates No. 112393

PowerPoint presentation entitled 

Tenneco P558 Steering Damper 

Revie

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-80, Exhibit 88; 

Bates No. 78924

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-90, Exhibit 99; 

Bates No. 51606

Report, entitled P558 Steering 

Oscillation

Granted.

Root Cause Analysis

Doc. No. 124-17, Exhibit 13; 

Bates No. 98450

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-19, Exhibit 15; 

Bates No. 100194

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-23, Exhibit 19; 

Bates No. 105214

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-25, Exhibit 23; 

Bates No. 53299

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-26, Exhibit 24; 

Bates No. 95695

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-36, Exhibit 43; 

Bates No. 111160–4

PowerPoint presentation, 

entitled "P558 Sustained 

Steering Osc

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-39, Exhibit 47; 

Bates No. 66364

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-81, Exhibit 89; 

Bates No. 108882

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-82, Exhibit 90; 

Bates No. 28174

Global CCRG Concern Details Granted.

Doc. No. 124-83, Exhibit 91; 

Bates No. 46501–2

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-84, Exhibit 92; 

Bates No. 86228

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 8 of 14
9

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-85, Exhibit 93; 

Bates No. 55263

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-86, Exhibit 94; 

Bates No. 46321

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-87, Exhibit 95; 

Bates No. 111159

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-88, Exhibit 96; 

Bates No. 87635

Document, labeled Capital 

Project Process

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-89, Exhibit 98; 

Bates No. 54442

Ford 6-Panel PowerPoint 

presentation

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-91, Exhibit 100; 

Bates No. 87705

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-92, Exhibit 101; 

Bates No. 109047

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-94, Exhibit 103; 

Bates No. 55172

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-96, Exhibit 105; 

Bates No. 110261

Document created by Ford 

entitled "P558 Steering 

Oscillation

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-97, Exhibit 106; 

Bates No. 111055

Document entitled Issue Title: 

P558 Steering Oscillation

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-98, Exhibit 108; 

Bates No. 29297

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-99, Exhibit 109; 

Bates No. 46506

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-100, Exhibit 110; 

Bates No. 94580

Document entitled 2017-19 

Super Duty Steering Oscillation 

Talking

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-102, Exhibit 118; 

Bates No. 55570

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 9 of 14
10

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-103, Exhibit 119; 

Bates No. 65722

Document entitled "Concern 

Description"

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-105, Exhibit 122; 

Bates No. 56070

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-106, Exhibit 123; 

Bates No. 63466–7

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-107, Exhibit 124; 

Bates No. 112555

PowerPoint presentation entitled 

P558 Steering LAWF

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-109, Exhibit 141; 

Bates No. 56077

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-110, Exhibit 142; 

Bates No. 92616

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-111, Exhibit 143; 

Bates No. 103633

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-112, Exhibit 144; 

Bates No. 111633

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 10 of 14
11

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

Doc. No. 124-114, Exhibit 146; 

Bates No. 58372

Excel Datasheet entitled 

SUPERDUTY KTP PAYNTER 

21MY22MY_COMBINED

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-115, Exhibit 147; 

Bates No. 55846

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-116, Exhibit 148; 

Bates No. 55870

Powerpoint presentation entitled 

"P558/P708 Steering System L

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-117, Exhibit 149; 

Bates No. 52787

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Doc. No. 124-118, Exhibit 150; 

Bates No. 65847

Excerpts of Spreadsheet of 

warranty claims

DENIED. Ford fails to 

narrowly tailor its sealing 

request and has identified no 

competitive harm or other good 

cause that would justify sealing 

this document in its entirety.

Cost & Financial Information

Doc. No. 124-27, Exhibit 25; 

Bates No. 101864

Document entitled Variable 

Cost Estimate Summary

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-29, Exhibit 27; 

Bates No. 93885

PowerPoint presentation entitled 

P558 SLA Risks, Opportunities

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-33, Exhibit 31; 

Bates No. 93881

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-34, Exhibit 41; 

Bates No. 131435

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-41, Exhibit 49; 

Bates No. 71919

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Warranty

Doc. No. 124-35, Exhibit 42; 

Bates No. 63717

PowerPoint presentation, 

entitled "F250/350 4x4 

Warranty Analy

Granted.

Doc. No. 124-93, Exhibit 102; 

Bates No. 87590

Email exchange between Ford 

employees.

Granted.

Doc. Nos. 124-101, 104, 

Exhibits 112, 121; Bates Nos. 

55174, 54848

PowerPoint presentation entitled 

Chassis Issue: Steering Wheel 

Os

Granted.

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 11 of 14
12

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

B. Motion to Seal, Doc. No. 134

Ford filed its second Motion to Seal on February 22, 2024 and asks the Court to seal 

one document in full, attached as Exhibit D7 to the Declaration of Victoria C. Hargis in 

support of Ford’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and to partially 

seal discrete portions of three other documents also filed with Ford’s opposition, which 

quote directly from the information in Exhibit D7. (Doc. No. 134 at 4.) Specifically, Ford 

seeks to seal various excerpts containing response data from a New Vehicle Customer 

Survey (“NVCS”) conducted by a third-party vendor. (Id.) Ford argues these documents 

reflect and contain Ford’s confidential business information or trade secrets, and would 

cause substantial competitive harm to Ford if publicly released. (Id. at 4–5.) Plaintiffs have 

not filed an opposition to the motion.

Exhibit D7 and the three documents which quote in part from Exhibit D7 contain 

information from a survey performed by a third-party vendor which “allow[s] automotive 

manufacturers to gain current and comprehensive data on automotive buying trends and 

the reasons for purchase, satisfaction, consideration, conquest and loyalty, usage and buyer 

profiling.” (Declaration of William Neafsey, Doc. No. 134-1, ¶ 8.) Ford does not own this 

data and receives the data pursuant to a license, which Ford pays for. (Id. ¶ 9.) The Court 

finds good cause exists for sealing these documents because they codify proprietary 

business information and trade secrets that could harm Ford’s competitive standing. Thus, 

Ford’s motion to seal in full Exhibit D7 and seal in part (1) Ford’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion for Class Certification; (2) Ford’s Motion to Exclude Plaintiffs’ Expert Edward 

Stockton; and (3) the Report of Kristin Lennox in Support of Ford’s Opposition is 

GRANTED.

IV. SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION TO SEAL

Next, Plaintiffs move to seal its Opposition to Ford’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, which references information designated by Ford as containing confidential and 

proprietary information. (Doc. No. 138.) Ford has not filed an opposition to the motion.

///

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 12 of 14
13

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

A party must demonstrate “compelling reasons,” supported by “specific factual 

findings” to seal a document in connection with a dispositive motion. Foltz, 331 F.3d at

1135; Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). A “good cause” 

showing will not, without more, satisfy a “compelling reasons” test. Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

at 1180. In ruling on a motion to seal in connection with a dispositive motion, “[t]he court 

must ‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of the public and the party who 

seeks to keep certain judicial records secret . . . and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, 

without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. 1127 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135,

and Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434).

Plaintiffs’ motion does not comply with the Civil Case Procedures of the Honorable 

Anthony J. Battaglia, U.S. District Judge, nor the law of this Circuit, which require the 

party moving for a sealing order to make a particularized showing of compelling reasons—

supported by factual evidence—that outweigh the strong presumption of access. See 

Krommenhock v. Post Foods, LLC, 334 F.R.D. 552, 586 (N.D. Cal. 2020); J. Battaglia Civ. 

Case Proc. § IV.3. Plaintiffs solely rely on reference to the stipulated protective order, 

which does not supply a legal basis to curtail the public’s access to judicial records. See In 

re Ferrero Litig., No. 11-CV-205 H(CAB), 2011 WL 3360443, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 

2011) (holding that a protective order itself does not satisfy the standard required of a 

sealing order). Plaintiffs also fail to identify a specific harm that would be caused by the 

public disclosure of these documents. As such, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is DENIED.

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 13 of 14
14

19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG

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

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART

WITHOUT PREJUDICE the motions to seal. (Doc. Nos. 128, 134, 138.) If the parties

wish to provide supplemental briefing regarding any exhibits for which sealing is denied 

without prejudice, they must do so by April 1, 2024. The parties may either provide 

additional facts to support their request to seal exhibits in their entirety or propose targeted 

redactions. If the parties do not file supplemental briefing by this date, the Court shall 

instruct the Clerk to docket the exhibits in accordance with this Order. The exhibits will 

remain lodged under seal in the interim.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 17, 2024

Case 3:19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG Document 149 Filed 03/18/24 PageID.<pageID>

Page 14 of 14