Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02499/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02499-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

SANDY BELL and MARTIN GAMA, 

individually, and on behalf 

of other members of the 

general public similarly 

situated, and as aggrieved 

employees pursuant to the 

Private Attorneys General Act 

(“PAGA”),

Plaintiffs,

v.

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., Inc., a 

Delaware corporation; JOHN 

BROOKS, an individual; and 

DOES I through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-02499-GEB-CKD

ORDER GRANTING HOME DEPOT’S 

SEALING REQUEST

On October 12, 2015, Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 

(“Home Depot”) submitted for in camera consideration a Notice of 

Request and Request to Seal Confidential Documents Filed in 

Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (“Sealing 

Request”), declaration in support thereof, a proposed sealing 

order, and the documents sought to be sealed. Home Depot filed 

each of the referenced documents on the public docket, with the 

Case 2:12-cv-02499-DJC-CKD Document 70 Filed 10/15/15 Page 1 of 5
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

exception of the documents sought to be sealed. (See ECF No. 68.)

The documents requested to be sealed are identified as 

“Home Depot’s Security [Standard Operating Procedures (“SOPs”)], 

attached as exhibit I to the declaration of Raul Perez in support 

of [P]laintiffs’ motion for class certification.” (Sealing Req. 

1:4-6, ECF No. 68.) Home Depot argues: 

Good cause and compelling reasons exist 

to seal the Security SOP[s] because . . . 

. . . . 

. . . [t]he SOP[s] contains security 

protocols for opening and closing Home Depot 

stores, including when doors are unlocked, 

when alarms are deactivated, and where 

employees are positioned during this process. 

If made public, it could easily be used to 

breach [Home Depot’s] security policies, 

placing [Home Depot’s] employees and 

facilities at risk. Further, the public 

simply does not need access to the Security 

SOP[s] to understand the issues in this 

lawsuit and indeed, any such access could 

irreparably harm Home Depot and its store 

employees.

(Id. at 1:7-11, 2:2-10.) Home Depot further contends: 

[The SOPs] are not germane to [P]laintiffs’ 

class motion which alleges that employees 

were required to work off-the-clock before 

and after their shifts, not paid the 

appropriate regular rate and premiums for 

alleged missed meal periods and rest breaks, 

allegedly not provided proper rest breaks, 

and not provided overtime compensation for 

certain overnight shifts. With the possible 

exception of the off-the-clock claim, these 

remaining claims . . . will not require any 

reference to the Security SOP. The off-theclock claim alleges that store employees were 

required to engage in certain security 

procedures. However, specific details 

regarding defendant’s security procedures, 

such as where cash is stored, when alarms are 

deactivated, and which doors are locked, are 

tangential to this issue at best.

(Id. at 5:13-24 (citation omitted).)

Case 2:12-cv-02499-DJC-CKD Document 70 Filed 10/15/15 Page 2 of 5
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

DISCUSSION

“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) “[T]he 

resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or 

summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the 

public’s understanding of the judicial process and of significant 

public events.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley 

Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 

1986)). “Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a judicial record 

attached to a dispositive motion or one that is presented at 

trial must articulate ‘compelling reasons’ in favor of sealing.” 

Williams v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 604 (E.D. Cal. 

2013) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “In general, 

‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest 

in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such 

‘court files might have 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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner 

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). 

In contrast, “[t]he Ninth Circuit has determined that 

the public’s interest in non-dispositive motions is relatively 

lower than its interest in trial or a dispositive motion. 

Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a document attached to a 

Case 2:12-cv-02499-DJC-CKD Document 70 Filed 10/15/15 Page 3 of 5
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

non-dispositive motion need only demonstrate ‘good cause’ to 

justify sealing.” Williams, 290 F.R.D. at 604 (citing Pintos, 605 

F.3d at 678).

“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). Home Depot 

contends the good cause standard applies to its sealing request, 

although it argues: “[e]ven if the Court were to apply the more 

demanding ‘compelling reasons’ standard, that standard would 

still be met in this instance.” (Sealing Req. 4:24-25.)

The Court need not decide which standard applies to the 

instant request since Home Depot has shown “compelling reasons”

to seal the referenced documents. Here, the Security SOPs sought 

to be sealed contain Home Depot’s security protocols in opening 

and closing its stores, the disclosure of which could threaten 

its stores’ security and its employees’ safety. Cf. In re Google 

Inc. Gmail Litigation, No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5366963, at 

*3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013) (finding compelling reasons existed 

to seal “information that if made public . . . could lead to a 

breach in the security of [Google’s] Gmail system”). 

Therefore, Home Depot’s sealing request is GRANTED. 

Home Depot shall provide to the Clerk an electronic copy of the 

documents to be filed under seal as prescribed in Local Rule 

Case 2:12-cv-02499-DJC-CKD Document 70 Filed 10/15/15 Page 4 of 5
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

141(e)(2)(i) within seven (7) days from the date this order is 

filed. 

Dated: October 14, 2015

Case 2:12-cv-02499-DJC-CKD Document 70 Filed 10/15/15 Page 5 of 5