Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02103/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02103-25/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Fraud

---

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 

CHAD HERRON, individually, on 

behalf of himself and all 

others similarly situated, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BEST BUY STORES, LP, a 

Virginia limited partnership; 

and Dell, Inc.; 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-02103-GEB-CKD 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DELL’S SEALING 

REQUEST 

On September 18, 2015, Defendant Dell, Inc. (“Dell”) 

submitted for in camera consideration a Request to Seal Documents 

and to File Redacted Versions, a proposed sealing order, and the 

39 pages of documents sought to be sealed. The documents 

requested to be sealed are identified in a publicly filed Notice 

of Request to Seal Documents and to File Redacted Versions 

(“Notice”) as certain pages of Dell’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Class Certification (“Opposition”) and certain pages 

of the Report of Dr. Mohan Rao submitted in support of the 

Opposition (“Report”). (Notice 1:4-2:1, ECF No. 134.) 

Dell states that it “seeks to file these excerpts under 

seal because the information at issue [was] the subject of a[n 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 142 Filed 09/29/15 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 

earlier] motion to seal (Doc. 128), which the Court granted (Doc. 

129).” (Id. at 2:2-3.) 

Dell also requests an “order permitting the filing 

of . . . redacted versions of the Opposition and Report” under 

Local Rule 140(b). (Id. at 2:10-11.) 

DISCUSSION 

The September 10, 2015 Order Granting Joint Renewed 

Sealing Request discussed the two standards that generally govern 

sealing requests. (See Order 4:25-6:8, ECF No. 129; see also 

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 

(9th Cir. 2006) (discussing the “good cause” and “compelling 

reasons” sealing standards).) Therefore, they are not repeated 

herein. 

The Court need not decide which sealing standard 

applies to Dell’s request since Dell has shown that certain 

documents should be sealed and redactions permitted under the 

heightened compelling reasons standard, and Dell has not 

satisfied the lesser good cause standard concerning the remainder 

of its request. 

A. Request to Seal 

Dell has shown “compelling reasons” to seal pages 2, 6-

7, 10-12, and 21-22 of its Opposition, pages 2, 7, 8-14, and 16-

19 of its Report, and Tab B, page 2 to the Report. These 

documents contain business information the public disclosure of 

which could be detrimental to Best Buy’s competitive interests. 

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

2013) (“‘[S]ources of business information that might harm a 

litigant’s competitive standing’ often warrant protection under 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 142 Filed 09/29/15 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 

seal.” (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 

(1978))). 

In contrast, Dell has not shown even good cause to seal 

the remaining pages of its Opposition and Report. “Because of the 

strong presumption of access to [court] records, . . . [s]ealing 

orders . . . must be narrowly tailored.” Perry v. City & Cnty. 

of S.F., No. 10-16696, 2011 WL 2419868, at *21 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Therefore, “any interest justifying closure must be specified 

with particularity, and there must be [a showing] that the 

[redaction requested] is narrowly confined to protect that 

interest.” Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis 

omitted). 

B. Proposed Redactions 

Further, Dell has shown “compelling reasons” to justify 

its proposed redactions with the exception of the following 

proposed redactions: 

Proposed Redactions to Opposition: 

Page 1 – all; 

Page 2, line 1, starting with “Under” through page 2, 

line 2, ending with “file”; 

Page 2, line 2, starting with “or circulars),” through 

page 2, line 4, ending with “motion.”; 

Page 6, line 3, the word “Three”; 

Page 6, line 7, starting with “He” through page 6, line 

8, ending with “First,”; 

Page 6, line 9, starting with “Second,” through page 6, 

line 18, ending with “with:”; 

Page 6, line 18, starting with “(ii)” through page 6, 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 142 Filed 09/29/15 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 

line 24, ending with “created:”; 

Page 7, line 1, starting with “Plaintiff,” through page 

7, line 5, ending with “representations.”; 

Page 7, line 13 starting with “In contrast,” through 

page 8, line 9, ending with “2007.”; 

Page 8, footnote 4; 

Page 10, line 7, starting with “II.” through page 10, 

line 9, ending with “that”; 

Page 10, line 15, starting with “Plaintiff” through 

page 10, line 18, ending with “supra”; 

Page 10, line 26, starting with “It” through page 10, 

line 27, ending with “life.”; 

Page 11, line 5, starting with “Finally,” through page 

11, line 11, ending with “improper.”; 

Page 12, line 1, starting with “Second,” through page 

12, line 5, ending with “purchase,’”; 

Page 12, line 13, starting with “Specifically,” through 

page 12, line 21, ending with “use’).”; 

Page 13 – all; 

Page 14 – all; 

Page 15 – all; 

Page 16 – all; 

Page 18 – all; 

Page 19 – all; 

Page 20 – all; 

Page 21, line 14, starting with “As” through page 21, 

line 16, ending with “required.”; 

Page 21, line 19, starting with “As” through page 21, 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 142 Filed 09/29/15 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 

line 22, ending with “12-16.”; 

Page 21, line 24, starting with “For” through page 21, 

line 25, ending with “& 12.”; and 

Page 22, line 3, starting with “To” through page 22, 

line 16, ending with “See id.” 

Proposed Redactions to Report: 

Page 2, headings IV (B) and (C); 

Page 3 – all; 

Page 6 – all; 

Page 7, the last two paragraphs, starting with “- In 

fact,” through “outcome.”; 

Page 8, the first paragraph, starting with “Indeed, and 

ending with “Mr. Sarsfield.”; 

Page 8, the three paragraphs following the first bullet 

point, starting with “Plaintiff’s argument” through 

“certification in this case.”; 

Page 14, paragraph 18 and footnotes 29 and 31; 

Page 15 – all; 

Page 19, the two paragraphs following the bullet point, 

starting with “Plaintiff’s argument” through “Plaintiff’s 

theory”; 

Page 20, the text above the bullet point, starting with 

“of harm” through “in this case.”; 

Tab B, page 1 – all; and 

Tab B, page 3 – all. 

Dell has not justified for the referenced redactions 

even under the lesser good cause standard. 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 142 Filed 09/29/15 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 

CONCLUSION 

For the stated reasons, Dell’s sealing request is 

granted in part, and denied in part. 

Dell shall provide to the Clerk an electronic copy of 

the documents to be filed under seal as prescribed in Local Rule 

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

filed. 

Further, Dell shall file the authorized redacted 

versions of its Opposition and Report on the public docket within 

seven (7) days from the date this order is filed. 

Dated: September 28, 2015 

 

Case 2:12-cv-02103-TLN-CKD Document 142 Filed 09/29/15 Page 6 of 6