Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-03504/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-03504-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 47:227 Telephone Consumer Protection Act

---

Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

 1 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MELANIE G. SAN PEDRO-SALCEDO,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

THE HAAGEN-DAZS SHOPPE 

COMPANY, INC., 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:17-cv-03504-EJD 

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL 

Re: Dkt. Nos. 92, 99, 104, 111, 117, 118, 

119, 121, 123, 124, 127, 128 

 The parties have filed numerous administrative motions to file under seal in connection 

with Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The 

order addresses these motions. 

U.S. courts recognize that the public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. 

Surf Designs, Inc., 2019 WL 1590470, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 12, 2019) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 

Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). “When considering a sealing request, ‘a strong 

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.’” Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., 2019 

WL 2305278, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2019) (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). This right is not absolute though. Whitewater W. Indus., 2019 

WL 1590470, at *1 (quoting Nixon, 434 U.S. at 598). In order to seal judicial records that are 

“more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” the moving party must show 

“compelling reasons” for maintaining confidentiality that outweigh the presumption in favor of 

disclosure. Space Data, 2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 

809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016)). To make this showing, the moving party must provide 

“specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 

favoring disclosure.” Opperman v. Path, Inc., 2017 WL 1036652, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 

2017). Courts applying the compelling reasons standard have upheld the sealing of trade secrets, 

Case 5:17-cv-03504-EJD Document 130 Filed 11/20/19 Page 1 of 5
Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

 2 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, 

customer information, internal reports and other such materials that could harm a party’s 

competitive standing. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008); 

Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652; Lucas v. Breg, Inc., 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 

2016); Rodman v. Safeway Inc., 2015 WL 13673842 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015). 

However, courts should exercise caution not allow these exceptions swallow the strong 

presumption in favor of disclosure. “There fact that the production of records may lead to a 

litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, 

compel the court to seal its records.” Lucas, 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2016) 

(quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 

examples of articulated reasoning” will not carry the compelling standards burden. Space Data, 

2019 WL 2305278, at *1 (quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th 

Cir. 1992)). Mere designation of a document as confidential under a protective order is not 

sufficient to establish that said document, or portions thereof, are sealable. Civil L.R. 79- 

5(d)(1)(A). 

It is well established among District Courts in this Circuit that motions for class 

certification are more than tangentially related to the underlying merits of a case and are therefore 

subject to the compelling reasons standard to file under seal. See, e.g., Waldrup v. Countrywide 

Fin. Corp., 2018 WL 4586188, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2018); Opperman, 2017 WL 1036652, at 

*3; Cohen v. Trump, 2016 WL 3036302, at *3 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2016). Motions for summary 

judgment are also more than tangentially related to the merits of a lawsuit. The court will apply 

the compelling reasons standard to all of the instant motions to seal. 

A. Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Motion for Class 

Certification. Dkt. Nos. 119, 121, 127. 

Document Portions Requested Sealed The Court’s Ruling 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class 

Certification 

4:19-21; 5:1-12; 5:15-17; 5:23-

24; 5:26-27; 6:1-3; 10:25-11:2; 

17:23-24; 14:15-18. 

Denied. The court finds 

Defendant has not met the 

compelling reasons 

standard. In addition, the 

material largely concerns 

Case 5:17-cv-03504-EJD Document 130 Filed 11/20/19 Page 2 of 5
Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

 3 

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 

Northern District of Californi

a

Defendant’s 

communications to the 

public and is therefore not 

subject to sealing. 

Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of 

Michael Jaurigue 

Its entirety. Denied. The court finds 

Defendant has not met the 

compelling reasons 

standard. In addition, the 

material largely concerns 

Defendant’s 

communications to the 

public and is therefore not 

subject to sealing. 

Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of 

Michael Jaurigue 

Its entirety. Denied. The court finds 

Defendant has not met the 

compelling reasons 

standard. In addition, the 

material largely concerns 

Defendant’s 

communications to the 

public and is therefore not 

subject to sealing. 

Moreover, the request is 

not narrowly tailored. 

B. Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Defendant’s Opposition to Class 

Certification. Dkt. Nos. 117, 118. 

Document Portions Requested Sealed The Court’s Ruling 

Defendants The Häagen-Dazs 

Shoppe Company, Inc., Nestlé 

Dreyer’s Ice Cream Company, 

and Nestlé USA, Inc.’s 

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Class Certification 

Lines 1:17-20, 1:22-24, 4:12-15, 

and 4:16-18. 

Denied. The court finds 

Defendant has not met the 

compelling reasons 

standard. In addition, the 

material largely concerns 

Defendant’s 

communications to the 

public and is therefore not 

subject to sealing. 

Declaration of Jennifer McLean 

in Support of Defendants’ 

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Class Certification 

Lines 3:21-28, 4:2-5, 4:7-9, and 

4:12-20. 

Granted as to ¶ 15; 

otherwise denied. The 

court finds Defendant has 

not met the compelling 

reasons standard. 

Exhibit A to the Declaration of 

Jennifer McLean in Support of 

Defendants’ Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class 

Certification

In its entirety. Granted. 

Exhibit B to the Declaration of In its entirety. Denied. The court finds 

Case 5:17-cv-03504-EJD Document 130 Filed 11/20/19 Page 3 of 5
Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

C. Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Class 

Certification. Dkr. Nos. 123, 124, 128 

Document Portions Requested Sealed The Court’s Ruling

Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of 

Her Motion for Class 

Certification 

7:11-13; 14:4-8. Denied. The court finds 

Defendant has not met the 

compelling reasons 

standard. In addition, the 

material largely concerns 

Defendant’s 

communications to the 

public and is therefore not 

subject to sealing. 

Jennifer McLean in Support of 

Defendants’ Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class 

Certification

Defendant has not met the 

compelling reasons 

standard 

Declaration of Matthew Bishop 

in Support of Defendants’ 

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Class Certification 

Lines 3:21-24, 3:26-4:1, and 

4:7-15. 

Granted as to ¶ 11, 

otherwise denied. The 

court finds Defendant has 

not met the compelling 

reasons standard. In 

addition, the material 

largely concerns 

Defendant’s 

communications to the 

public and is therefore not 

subject to sealing. 

Exhibit A to the Declaration of 

Matthew Bishop in Support of 

Defendants’ Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class 

Certification

In its entirety. Granted. 

Exhibit B to the Declaration of 

Matthew Bishop in Support of 

Defendants’ Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class 

Certification

In its entirety. Denied. The court finds 

Defendant has not met the 

compelling reasons 

standard 

Exhibit C to the Declaration of 

Matthew Bishop in Support of 

Defendants’ Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Class 

Certification 

In its entirety. Denied. The court finds 

Defendant has not met the 

compelling reasons 

standard. In addition, the 

material largely concerns 

Defendant’s 

communications to the 

public and is therefore not 

subject to sealing. 

Case 5:17-cv-03504-EJD Document 130 Filed 11/20/19 Page 4 of 5
Case No.: 5:17-cv-03504-EJD

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 

 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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

D. Defendant’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment. Dkt. No. 92. 

This motion does not comply with the civil local rules for the reasons expressed in the 

court’s previous order denying without prejudice motions to file under seal. The motion is denied 

without prejudice. Within seven days of this order, Defendant may re-file a compliant motion to 

file under seal. In the renewed motion to file under seal, Defendant shall not seek to seal any 

material as to which the court has already denied a motion to file under seal. 

E. Administrative Motions to File Under Seal Plaintiff’s Opposition to Summary 

Judgment. Dkt. Nos. 99, 104 

These motions do not comply with the civil local rules for the reasons expressed in the 

court’s previous order denying without prejudice motions to file under seal. The motions are 

denied without prejudice. Within seven days of this order, the parties may re-file one joint motion 

to file under seal that is supported by a declaration from the designating party (or parties). In the 

renewed joint motion to file under seal, the parties shall not seek to seal any material as to which 

the court has already denied a motion to file under seal. 

F. Defendant’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Defendant’s Reply Separate 

Statement and Exhibits Dkt. No. 111. 

This motion does not comply with the civil local rules for the reasons expressed in the 

court’s previous order denying without prejudice motions to file under seal. The motion is denied 

without prejudice. Within seven days of this order, Defendant may re-file a compliant motion to 

file under seal. In the renewed motion to file under seal, Defendant shall not seek to seal any 

material as to which the court has already denied a motion to file under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 20, 2019 

______________________________________ 

EDWARD J. DAVILA 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:17-cv-03504-EJD Document 130 Filed 11/20/19 Page 5 of 5