Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02904/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02904-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LATASHA MCLAUGHLIN, on behalf of

herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-02904 WHA

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Plaintiff Latasha McLaughlin and defendant Wells Fargo Bank have filed administrative

motions to file under seal portions of the opposition and reply to the class certification motion

along with portions of defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The portions sought to be

sealed contain personal identifying information relating to plaintiff’s bank records and

confidential financial and propriety information that had been designated as highly confidential

under the parties’ protective order. In response, the parties have submitted detailed declarations

in support of the motions to seal. 

“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. A good cause

showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive

motions.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Case 3:15-cv-02904-WHA Document 91 Filed 03/01/16 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Motions for class certification are non-dispositive motions and thus parties seeking to seal

portions of them must meet the good cause standard. Motions for summary judgment are

dispositive and thus compelling reasons must be shown to seal portions of that motion.

The rulings on the motions to seal are as follows. Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibits

1–12 of the Shively Declaration is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. These exhibits

contain personal information relating to plaintiff’s mortgage with Wells Fargo as well as her

dispute with her contractor. All personal information — such as private email addresses,

telephone numbers, claim numbers, and social security numbers — shall be redacted as indicated

in the Avery Declaration. The remainder of Shively Exhibits 1–12 shall be made public. 

Defendant’s motion to redact portions of its class certification opposition and motion for

summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion to seal the portions

of the briefs which reference plaintiff’s personal information, as described above, is GRANTED. 

The motion to seal portions of the opposition to the class certification motion, specifically page

4, lines 17–20 and 22–24 and page 21, lines 17–21 is DENIED. These redacted sections discuss

the deposition testimony of Jody Leo. The sections referenced, however, have already been

disclosed by Wells Fargo in other public filings (Dkt Nos 57–1 at p. 6; Dkt. No. 69–1 at p. 11). 

Plaintiff’s motion to seal portions of her reply to defendant’s class certification

opposition is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion to seal Exhibits 4–6 to the

Insley-Pruitt Declaration is GRANTED. These exhibits are audio recordings of phone calls in

which plaintiff regularly discusses personal identifying information. The transcripts of these

recordings shall be redacted as the parties propose, redacting plaintiff’s email addresses,

telephone numbers, claim numbers, and social security numbers. The motion to seal other

portions of the reply brief (other than the plaintiff’s personal information) is DENIED, as

defendant has withdrawn its confidentiality designation for these portions.

Defendant’s motion to remove incorrectly filed documents that contain plaintiff’s

personal information (Dkt. No. 84) is GRANTED.

Case 3:15-cv-02904-WHA Document 91 Filed 03/01/16 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

By NOON ON MARCH 7, 2016, the parties shall re-file and submit to the Court redacted

versions of the opposition and reply to the class certification motion and the motion for summary

judgment, along with the redacted exhibits, in accordance with this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 1, 2016. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-02904-WHA Document 91 Filed 03/01/16 Page 3 of 3