Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02671/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02671-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

GINO MARAVENTANO and

NEESHA KURJI,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NOS. 10cv2671 JM (WMC)

 11cv2609 JM (WMC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX

PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE

UNDER SEAL PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY

APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION

SETTLEMENT, CONDITIONAL

CERTIFICATION OF CLASS FOR

SETTLEMENT PURPOSES, AND

DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS

OF MATTHEW ARCHBOLD,

KATHRYN LEE BOYD, AND

MAXIM VAYNEROV

v.

NORDSTROM, INC., a Washington

corporation; and DOES 1-100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

GINA BALASANYAN and NUNE

NALBANDIAN, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NORDSTROM, INC., a Washington

corporation; and DOES 1-100,

inclusive,

Defendants.

- 1 - 10-cv-02671 JM (WMC)

Case 3:10-cv-02671-JM-JLB Document 155 Filed 05/27/14 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

On May 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application to file under seal

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, conditional

certification of class for settlement purposes, and declarations and exhibits of

Matthew Archbold, Kathryn Lee Boyd, and Maxim Vaynerov. (Dkt. No. 150.) For

the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” 

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). 

Except for documents that are traditionally kept secret, there is “a strong

presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

1178–79. Generally, “the public has less of a need for access to court records

attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often

‘unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations omitted). Thus, a particularized

showing under the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) will suffice to warrant

preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to non-dispositive

motions.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135, 1138)(citations and internal

quotations omitted).

In their ex parte application to seal, Plaintiffs argue good cause exists to file

the entirety of the motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement, as

well as all of the attached declarations and exhibits, under seal. Plaintiffs contend

good cause exists because the motion and supporting documents disclose the terms

of the stipulated class settlement, including “confidential material relating to the

terms of the Agreement” and “confidential settlement negotiations that form the

basis of the Stipulated Settlement.” (Dkt. No. 150 at 2). As support for this

- 2 - 10-cv-02671 JM (WMC)

Case 3:10-cv-02671-JM-JLB Document 155 Filed 05/27/14 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

proposition, Plaintiffs rely upon Prosurance Group, Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Group,

Inc., 2011 WL 704456, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2011), in which the court held that

good cause existed to seal certain documents associated with the defendants’ motion

to determine good faith settlement that discussed or disclosed the terms of the

confidential settlement agreement. Notably, Prosurance Group did not involve a

class action settlement subject to both preliminary and final approval by the court. 

Moreover, the court in Prosurance Group found that sealing the defendants’ motion

to determine good faith settlement and the plaintiff’s statement of non-opposition in

their entirety was not justified given that only portions of the documents addressed

the settlement or confidential information. Accordingly, the court required the

defendants to file redacted versions of these documents “narrowly tailored to omit

only sealable material” and fully sealed only those documents that consisted either

entirely or substantially of confidential material relating to the terms of the

settlement. 

Similarly, Plaintiffs in this case seek to seal the entirety of their motion for

preliminary approval of settlement as well as all of the attached documents. 

Plaintiffs generally allege that these documents contain confidential materials, but

do not give any further insight into what aspects of these documents may be

considered confidential. Given the nature of a motion for preliminary approval of

class action settlement, Plaintiffs’ broad allegation that the motion and its

supporting documents pertain to the terms of the settlement does not on its own

constitute good cause for sealing them entirely. Under the circumstances, Plaintiffs

simply have not made a particularized showing of good cause to justify sealing the

entirety of Plaintiffs’ filings related to the motion for preliminary approval of class

action settlement.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ ex parte application is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE to Plaintiffs filing further application to seal. Any further application

must be separately filed and narrowly tailored to identify those specific records

- 3 - 10-cv-02671 JM (WMC)

Case 3:10-cv-02671-JM-JLB Document 155 Filed 05/27/14 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

Plaintiffs wish to seal (for example, employee records) and their reasons for doing

so. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 27, 2014

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

- 4 - 10-cv-02671 JM (WMC)

Case 3:10-cv-02671-JM-JLB Document 155 Filed 05/27/14 Page 4 of 4