Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02103/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02103-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

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

CHAD HERRON, individually, on 

behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEST BUY STORES, LP, a 

Virginia limited partnership,

Defendant.

No. 2:12-cv-02103-GEB-CKD

ORDER DENYING PLANITIFF’S 

SEALING REQUEST

On August 14, 2015, Plaintiff submitted for in camera 

consideration a Request to Seal Documents, a proposed sealing 

order, and the 577 pages of documents sought to be sealed. The 

documents requested to be sealed are referenced in a publicly 

filed Notice of Request to Seal Documents as follows: certain 

“portions of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities In 

Support of Motion for Class Certification[,]” multiple 

“[e]xhibits to the Declaration of Gene J. Stonebarger In Support 

of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification[,]” and certain 

pages of and exhibits to “the Report of William C. Sarsfield.” 

(Pl.’s Notice Req. Seal 1:4-2:17, ECF No. 125.) Plaintiff also 

requests under Local Rule 140 “permission from the Court to file 

redacted versions of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 127 Filed 08/24/15 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

Authorities in Support of Motion for Class Certification, the 

Declaration of Gene J. Stonebarger in Support [thereof] and the 

exhibits attached thereto, and the Report of William C. Sarsfield 

and the exhibits attached thereto.” (Id. at 3:1-6.)

Plaintiff seeks to file the referenced documents under 

seal, essentially arguing he is obligated to do so since “they 

are documents designated by Defendant . . . as ‘Confidential’, or 

contain information designated by Defendant as ‘Confidential’, 

pursuant to the Protective Order entered on February 27, 2014 

(Doc. No. 67).” (Id. at 2:18-21.) Plaintiffs further state in the 

Request to Seal:

Plaintiff cannot articulate good cause 

for sealing the . . . foregoing documents 

other than that they are designated as 

“Confidential” or contain information 

designated by Defendant as “Confidential” or 

“Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only”. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff submits such documents 

for sealing pending good cause shown by 

Defendant.

Defendant should submit a declaration 

with appropriate evidentiary support as to 

why the documents should be sealed, if any. 

If Defendant does not file its responsive 

declaration, the materials lodged herein 

should be made part of the public record.

Plaintiff hereby lodges with the Court 

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and 

Authorities in Support of Motion for Class 

Certification, the Declaration of Gene J. 

Stonebarger in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Class Certification and the exhibits 

attached thereto, the Report of William C. 

Sarsfield and the exhibits attached thereto. 

Plaintiff respectfully requests that the 

Court issue an Order permitting the filing 

under seal of these documents pending 

submission by Defendant establishing that the 

designated information is sealable.

(Pl.’s Req. Seal 2:24-3:9.)

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 127 Filed 08/24/15 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

No further documents have been submitted in connection 

with the sealing request. 

“Two standards generally govern [requests] to seal 

documents like the one at issue here.” 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 non-dispositive motions.” Kamakana v. City & 

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). “Those

who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to 

dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that 

‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” Id. Whereas, “[a] ‘good 

cause’ showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed 

records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Id. “The Ninth 

Circuit has not yet addressed whether or not, or under what 

circumstances, a motion for class certification is a dispositive 

motion for purposes of deciding what standard applies on sealing 

motions, and . . . [district] courts in [the Ninth Circuit] have 

reached different conclusions.” Herskowitz v. Apple, Inc., No. 

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

(internal quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). 

Here, Plaintiff has neither shown which sealing 

standard applies to his sealing request, nor demonstrated that 

the applicable standard has been met. 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 Enterprises, No. 2:13-cv00234-KJM-KJN, 2014 WL 2700901, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2014) 

(quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 127 Filed 08/24/15 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

307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also Herskowitz, 

2014 WL 3920036, at *2 (“Even under the ‘good cause’

standard . . . , a party must make a ‘particularized showing’

with respect to any individual document in order to justify 

sealing the relevant document.” (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)).

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s sealing request is 

DENIED. Further, since Local Rule 141(e)(1) prescribes that if a 

sealing “[r]equest is denied in full or in part, the Clerk will 

return to the submitting party the documents for which sealing 

has been denied,” the documents emailed to the courtroom deputy 

clerk for judicial in camera consideration are treated as having 

been returned to the moving party. United States v. Baez–Alcaino, 

718 F. Supp. 1503, 1507 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (indicating that when a 

judge denies a sealing request the party submitting the request 

then decides how to proceed in light of the ruling).

Dated: August 21, 2015

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 127 Filed 08/24/15 Page 4 of 4