Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672-128/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

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 California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” 

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

_____________________________________/

This Order Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS (except the securities action)

______________________________________/

MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)

ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

This multidistrict litigation arises out of Volkswagen’s alleged use of a defeat device—

software designed to evade emissions regulations and deceive federal and state authorities—in its 

vehicles. Plaintiffs now seek to seal portions of their Amended Consolidated Consumer Class 

Action Complaint, Second Amended Consolidated Reseller Dealership Class Action Complaint, 

and Second Amended Consolidated Competitor Dealership Class Action Complaint (collectively, 

“Amended Complaints”) that quote and rely on information found in documents Volkswagen 

designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms of the parties’ the Stipulated Protective Order. 

(Dkt. No. 1740; see Dkt. No. 1255.) There are two categories of documents: (1) documents 

implicating Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC (collectively, “Bosch”) and (2) 

documents containing some German language content which Volkswagen has not yet reviewed or 

de-designated. (Dkt. No. 1740 at 1.) 

In accordance with Local Civil rule 79-5(e), Plaintiffs served a copy of the Amended 

Complaints on Volkswagen. (Dkt. No. 1741.) Volkswagen did not file a declaration regarding the 

German-language documents. Bosch, however, filed its own Motion to File under Seal and 

Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion. (Dkt. No. 1754.) Having considered the parties’ arguments and 

the relevant legal authority, the Court issues the following order. 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1767 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 5
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 California

LEGAL STANDARD

Courts recognize that the public has a right to access judicial records and documents. 

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnote omitted). “The presumption 

of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, particularly 

because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have 

confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 

1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir.1995)). 

As such, a party who seeks to seal a dispositive motion must overcome “this strong 

presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Compelling reasons exist, for instance, when 

court documents may “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.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted). The compelling reasons standard 

requires the moving party to identify “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . 

. that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure[.]” Id. at 

1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The court must then weigh “’relevant 

factors,’ base its decision ‘on a compelling reason,’ and ‘articulate the factual basis for its ruling, 

without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

The “compelling reasons” standard applies fully to dispositive pleadings because “the 

resolution of a dispute on the merits . . . is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the public’s 

understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.” Id. But “the public’s 

interest in accessing dispositive materials does not apply with equal force to non-dispositive 

materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. With non-dispositive documents, “the usual presumption of 

the public’s right of access is rebutted,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, as those materials “are often 

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. 

Thus, a party seeking to seal non-dispositive materials “need only satisfy the less exacting ‘good 

cause’ standard” derived from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1767 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 5
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 California

F.3d at 1097; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to 

protect a party or person . . . .”). The good cause standard requires the moving party to show, “for 

each particular document it seeks to protect, . . . that specific prejudice or harm will result” if the 

court does not issue a protective order. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. “If a court finds particularized 

harm will result from disclosure of information to the public, then it balances the public and 

private interests to decide whether a protective order is necessary.” Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd 

v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Additionally, Local Civil Rule 79-5 governs motions to file documents under seal in this 

District. The rule permits sealing only where the party “establishes that the document, or portions 

thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the 

law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Furthermore, “[t]he request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

only of sealable material[.]” Id. If the moving party “seek[s] to file under seal a document 

designated as confidential by the opposing party or a non-party pursuant to a protective order, or a 

document containing information so designated by an opposing party or a non-party . . . the 

Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that 

all of the designated material is sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(e). 

DISCUSSION

The compelling reasons standard applies to requests to seal portions of a complaint. See In 

re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., 2008 WL 1859067, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (“[A] 

request to seal all or part of a complaint must clearly meet the ‘compelling reasons’ standard and 

not the ‘good cause’ standard. While a complaint is not, per se, the actual pleading by which a suit 

may be disposed of, it is the root, the foundation, the basis by which a suit arises and must be 

disposed of.”); see also Rieckborn v. Velti PLC, 2014 WL 4964313, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014)

(collecting cases and noting “courts in this District making sealing determinations treat a 

complaint as a dispositive motion.”).

A. References to Documents Implicating Bosch

The Court GRANTS Bosch’s Motion. Bosch seeks to redact only the names, job titles, 

and other identifying information of 38 Bosch employees; it does not seek the redaction of Bosch 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1767 Filed 08/24/16 Page 3 of 5
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 California

Chief Executive Officer and Defendant Volkmar Denner. (Dkt. No. 1754 at 1-2.) Sealing is 

appropriate. There is a compelling reason for sealing, namely, the disclosure of the non-party 

employees’ names would infringe on those individuals’ privacy rights. See Hunt v. Cont’l Cas. 

Co., 2015 WL 5355398, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2015) (sealing third parties’ names where such 

information “implicates important privacy concerns of nonparties—whose names are not relevant 

to the disposition of this case—that outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure of these judicial 

records”); Music Grp. Macao Commercial Offshore Ltd. v. Foote, No. 14-CV-03078-JSC, 2015 

WL 3993147, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015) (“Disclosure of [former, nonparty employees’ 

identities] would infringe the privacy rights of those two individuals, which constitutes a 

compelling reason for sealing.”); Murphy v. Kavo Am. Corp., 2012 WL 1497489, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

Apr. 27, 2012) (“Employees and former employees who are not parties to this litigation have 

privacy interests in their personnel information, and in other sensitive identifying information[.]”). 

Sealing the employees’ job titles is also necessary where the job title can identify the employee. 

Moreover, there is minimal public interest in this information; the public can still access Plaintiffs’ 

allegations regarding Bosch’s involvement in the implementation of the defeat device. The names 

and job titles of the individuals involved are irrelevant. Bosch’s request is also narrowly tailored 

as it seeks to redact only the employees’ names and job titles and nothing more. See Civil L.R. 

79-5(b).

B. References to German Language Documents 

Volkswagen did not file a responsive declaration stating why the portions of the Amended 

Complaints that quote and rely on documents with German language content are sealable. Absent 

compelling reasons for maintaining that information under seal, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to File Under Seal as to the documents with German language content. 

CONCLUSION

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Bosch’s Motion to File under Seal and 

GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion to File under Seal. 

1. On or before September 6, 2016, Bosch shall provide Plaintiffs with the 

Amended Complaints narrowly redacted in accordance with this Order, that is, 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1767 Filed 08/24/16 Page 4 of 5
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 California

redacted to remove the names, job titles, and other identifying information of the 

non-party Bosch employees. 

2. Plaintiffs shall file the new versions of the Amended Complaints on the 

public docket on or before September 8, 2016. 

This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 1740 and 1754. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 24, 2016

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1767 Filed 08/24/16 Page 5 of 5