Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

----oo0oo----

LIONEL HARPER and DANIEL 

SINCLAIR, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly 

situated and all aggrieved 

employees,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S REQUEST 

TO SEAL DOCUMENTS; 

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO SEAL 

DOCUMENTS

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs Lionel Harper and Daniel Sinclair brought 

this putative class action against defendant Charter 

Communications, LLC (“Charter”) alleging various violations of 

the California Labor and Business and Professions Code. (See

First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) (Docket No. 45).) Both Charter and 

plaintiffs have filed requests to seal documents in support of 

their filings related to Charter’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

(See Def.’s Req. to Seal Docs. (Docket No. 96-1); Pls.’ Req. to 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 6
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

Seal Docs. (Docket No. 99-1).) 

I. Charter’s Request

Charter requests that the court seal the following 

documents:

1. Documents related to the training 

provided to Account Executives, which are 

Exhibit A to the Declaration of Andrea 

Benner (“Benner Declaration”) in support of 

Charter’s Motion;

2. Signed commission plan that applied to 

Plaintiff Lionel Harper during his 

employment with Charter, which is attached 

as Exhibit D to the Benner Declaration;

3. Signed commission plans that applied to 

Plaintiff Daniel Sinclair during his 

employment with Charter, which are attached 

as Exhibit F to the Benner Declaration;

4. The Synygy training Charter provided to 

Account Executives, which is attached as 

Exhibit G to the Benner Declaration;

5. Charter’s “Standards of Performance”, 

which is attached as Exhibit H to the Benner 

Declaration;

6. The October 19, 2015 corrective action 

issued to Plaintiff Daniel Sinclair, which 

is attached as Exhibit I to the Benner 

Declaration;

7. The April 4, 2016 corrective action 

issued to Plaintiff Daniel Sinclair, which 

is attached as Exhibit J to the Benner 

Declaration;

8. The Incident Investigation Report, which 

is attached as Exhibit K to the Benner 

Declaration;

9. The January 5, 2018 written corrective 

action issued to Plaintiff Lionel Harper, 

which is attached as Exhibit M to the Benner 

Declaration; and 

10. The Incident Investigation Report and 

further corrective action related to 

Plaintiff Lionel Harper’s subpar 

performance, which is attached as Exhibit N 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 6
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

to the Benner Declaration.

(Def.’s Req. to Seal Docs. (Docket No. 96-1).) 

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public 

access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party must “articulate compelling 

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 

general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 

judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted). In ruling 

on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing 

interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records 

secret. Id. at 1179.

Defendant argues that the above-listed documents should 

be sealed because (1) Charter has designated the documents as 

confidential and subject to the parties’ Stipulation and 

Protective Order (Docket No. 43); (2) the content of the 

documents includes confidential and proprietary information, 

including Charter’s internal training documents and other 

employee policies, commission plans and other sales-related 

documents; (3) Charter has maintained such documents as 

confidential as part of its regular business practices; and (4) 

there is no clear public interest in publicly disclosing the 

information contained in these documents.

This court has previously pointed out that a 

confidentiality agreement between the parties does not per se

constitute a compelling reason to seal documents that outweighs 

the interests of public disclosure and access. See Feb. 5, 2016 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 6
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

Order at 3, Wilson v. Conair Corp., Civ. No. 1:14-cv-00894; Oct. 

8, 2014 Order at 2, Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging Distrib., 

Civ. No. 2:13-1754; Sept. 3, 2015 Order at 3, Foster Poultry 

Farms, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, Civ. No. 

1:14-00953; Sept. 18, 2015 Order at 2, Rosales v. City of Chico, 

Civ. No. 2:14-02152. The fact that the assigned magistrate judge 

signed the stipulated protective order does not change this 

principle. 

Beyond its contention that the documents are subject to 

the parties’ Stipulation and Protective Order, Charter offers the 

general assertion that the content of the documents includes 

confidential and proprietary information, including Charter’s 

internal training documents and other employee policies,

commission plans, and other sales-related documents. However, 

Charter provides no further guidance as to what sensitive 

information these internal training documents, commission plans, 

or “other sales-related documents” contain that would merit an 

order sealing the documents from public view. The documents 

defendant has submitted to the court total 211 pages; it is not 

the court’s burden to parse this substantial amount of material 

to determine which portions contain sensitive information. See

Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, 

London, Civ. No. 1:14–00953 WBS SAB, 2015 WL 5608241, at *2 (E.D. 

Cal. Sep. 23, 2015).

The court therefore finds that Charter has not provided 

a compelling reason to shield the submitted documents from public 

scrutiny. Accordingly, the court must deny Charter’s request to 

seal. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 Page 4 of 6
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

5

II. Plaintiffs’ Request

Plaintiffs request that the court seal the following 

documents: 

1. Business Account Executive job description, which is 

Exhibit 5 to the Soderstrom Declaration; 

2. Account Executive job description, which is Exhibit 

6 to the Soderstrom Declaration; 

3. Charter’s August 22, 2017 “Standards of 

Performance,” which is Exhibit 8 to the Soderstrom 

Declaration; 

4. Charter’s July 2017 “Timekeeping Policy,” which is 

Exhibit 9 to the Soderstrom Declaration; 

5. Charter’s December 2016 BAE New Hire Training 

“Participant Guide,” which is Exhibit 10 to the 

Soderstrom Declaration; 

6. Charter’s January 2017 New Hire Training 

“Participant Guide,” which is Exhibit 11 to the 

Soderstrom Declaration; 

7. Charter’s January 2017 Account Executive New Hire 

“Spectrum Sales Success Process,” which is Exhibit 12 

to the Soderstrom Declaration; 

8. Charter’s November 2014 Sales New Hire “Participant 

Playbook,” which is Exhibit 13 to the Soderstrom 

Declaration; 

9. Excerpts of a spreadsheet showing Sinclair’s 

commission payments, which is Exhibit 14 to the 

Soderstrom Declaration; 

10. Charter’s October 22, 2017 Commission Plan Addendum 

with Amended “Attachment A” commissions schedule, which 

is Exhibit 16 to the Soderstrom Declaration; 

11. Harper’s Salesforce “Leads List Report,” which is 

Exhibit 17 to the Soderstrom Declaration; and

(Pls.’ Req. to Seal Docs.) 

Plaintiffs offer almost exactly the same four reasons 

why these documents should be sealed as Charter. (See id.) 

Plaintiffs merely add “Charter’s actual and potential customers” 

as an example of proprietary information purportedly contained 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 Page 5 of 6
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

6

within the documents. (See id.) Like Charter, plaintiffs 

provide the court with 203 pages of documents with little 

guidance as to which portions contain sensitive information. 

Accordingly, for the same reasons articulated above, the court 

must deny plaintiffs’ request to seal. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

1178. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Charter and plaintiffs’

request to seal documents (Docket Nos. 96, 99) be, and the same 

hereby are, DENIED.

Dated: February 12, 2021

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 110 Filed 02/16/21 Page 6 of 6