Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672-131/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” 

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

_____________________________________/

This Order Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS (except the securities action)

______________________________________/

MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)

ORDER GRANTING JOLIAN 

KANGAS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

The Court previously denied Class Member Jolian Kangas’ Motion to Intervene to seek 

discovery. (Dkt. No. 1746.) Kangas has now filed an objection to the Settlement, portions of 

which he seeks to file under seal. (Dkt. No. 1809; see Dkt. Nos. 1809-3 (unredacted version), 

1809-4 (redacted version).) Specifically, Kangas seeks to redact three vehicle identification 

numbers (“VINs”), his telephone number, and his address. (Dkt. No. 1809 at 1; see Dkt. Nos. 

1809-3 at 8, 1809-4 at 8.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Kangas’ Motion to 

File portions of his objection under seal. 

BACKGROUND1

On July 28, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement between consumers, 

reseller dealers, and Volkswagen regarding certain 2.0-liter TDI diesel engine vehicles. (Dkt. No. 

1688.) The Court entered its Amended Order on July 30, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1698.) 

Kangas has not opted out of the Settlement. (Id.) He owns 2013 Passat TDI as well as an 

independent dealership that specializes in Volkswagen vehicles. (Dkt. No. 1809-4 at 8.) He also 

 1 The Court’s Amended Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement contains a more 

detailed factual and procedural background. (See Dkt. No. 1698 at 2-4.)

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1824 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 4
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

purchased a used 2009 and a used 2011 Jetta TDI on August 10, 2015 and September 15, 2015, 

respectively. (Id.) He sold the 2009 Jetta on October 10, 2015 and the 2011 Jetta on December 

10, 2015.2 (Id.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

Courts recognize that the public has a right to access judicial records and documents. 

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). “The presumption 

of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly 

because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have 

confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 

1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995)). 

As such, a party who seeks to seal a dispositive motion must overcome “this strong 

presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling reasons exist, for instance, when 

court documents may “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.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted). The compelling reasons standard 

requires the moving party to identify “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . 

. that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure[.]” Id. at 

1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court must then weigh “‘relevant 

factors,’ base its decision ‘on a compelling reason,’ and ‘articulate the factual basis for its ruling, 

without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

The “compelling reasons” standard applies fully to dispositive pleadings because “the 

resolution of a dispute on the merits . . . is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the public’s 

understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.” Id. But “the public’s 

 2 In his Objection, Kangas states he purchased “a 2011 Jetta TDI . . . for $8,825 at an auction and 

sold it on December 10, 2010.” (Dkt. No. 1809-4.) Presumably, he sold that vehicle in December 

2015, not 2010. 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1824 Filed 09/08/16 Page 2 of 4
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

interest in accessing dispositive materials does not apply with equal force to non-dispositive 

materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. With non-dispositive documents, “the usual presumption of 

the public’s right of access is rebutted,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, as those materials “are often 

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. 

Thus, a party seeking to seal non-dispositive materials “need only satisfy the less exacting ‘good 

cause’ standard” derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 

F.3d at 1097; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to 

protect a party or person . . . .”). The good cause standard requires the moving party to show, “for 

each particular document it seeks to protect, . . . that specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 

court does not issue a protective order. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. “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 ex rel. Estates of Byrd 

v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Additionally, Civil Local Rule 79-5 governs motions to file documents under seal in this 

District. The rule permits sealing only where the party “establishes that the document, or portions 

thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the 

law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Furthermore, “[t]he request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

only of sealable material[.]” (Id.) 

DISCUSSION

Although Kangas has filed an objection, not a motion, its nondispositive nature warrants 

application of the good cause standard. The Court finds there is good cause to redact the VINs, as 

well as Kangas’ telephone number and home address. 

As VINs provide access to personal information such as names, addresses, and social 

security numbers, VINs can be used to facilitate identity theft. The high profile nature of this case 

further heightens the possibility that Kangas’ VINs may be used for improper purposes. Further, 

the public has little need to access the VINs; Kangas alleges he is an owner of vehicle included in 

the Settlement and thus a Class Member. 

Similarly, the public dissemination of Kangas’ telephone number and home address risks 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1824 Filed 09/08/16 Page 3 of 4
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

harassment, and the public has little need to access that information. See Layer2 Commc’ns Inc. v. 

Flexera Software LLC, 2014 WL 2536993, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2014) (allowing the redaction 

of deponent’s home address and noting “[s]uch information typically is entitled to privacy, 

particularly where as here, it is not relevant to the case.”); Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle 

Corp., 2007 WL 3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) (“[T]he amount of information that 

[p]laintiffs seek to redact is small, and that the information (home addresses and financial account 

information) has little or no relevance to any material issue in this case.”). Moreover, the contact 

information for Kangas’ attorney remains unredacted should anyone wish to contact Kangas. 

Finally, Kangas’ request is narrowly tailored; he does not seek to redact any other portions 

of his objection. See Local C.R. 79-5(b). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Kangas’ Motion to File Under Seal. 

Kangas’ VINs, telephone number, and home address listed in his objection shall remain under 

seal. 

This Order disposes of Dkt. No. 1809. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 8, 2016

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1824 Filed 09/08/16 Page 4 of 4