Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00652/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-00652-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FOSTER RICH,

Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH W. SHRADER, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv652 AJB (BGS)

ORDER:

1) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE

PREVIOUSLY FILED

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL, (Doc.

No. 113); and

2) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART THE JOINT

MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

ATTACHED TO PLAINTIFF’S

OPPOSITION, (Doc. No. 114). 

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal Confidential Documents Previously Filed. (Doc. No. 113.) Defendants seek leave of this Court to seal certain confidential

documents attached to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, previously filed on

October 3, 2013. (Doc. No. 108). Moreover, the parties have also jointly filed a Motion

to Seal Confidential Documents attached the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 114.) 

I. BACKGROUND

1 09cv652

Case 3:09-cv-00652-AJB-BGS Document 116 Filed 11/13/13 Page 1 of 9
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

On October 3, 2013, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No.

108.) Attached to that motion were documents that contain “confidential and proprietary

information,” which Defendants “inadvertently filed publicly rather than under seal.”

(Greenfield Decl., Doc. No. 113.) Defendants now seek a retroactive order from this

Court to seal those portions (the “Confidential Materials”). In addition, Plaintiff’s

Opposition to Summary Judgment was due by November 12, 2013. Plaintiff has lodged

the Opposition with the Court and it will be filed and docketed after the issuance of this

Order.

The Court incorporates by reference the factual and procedural background of the

instant action set forth by Magistrate Judge Bernard G. Skomal’s Order Determining

Discovery Dispute. (Doc. No. 99.) 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is

one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting

point. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)

(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record

must articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring

disclosure. See id. at 1178–79. In turn, the court must “conscientiously balance []

balance the competing interests” of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain

judicial records secret. Id. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal

certain judicial records, it must “base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate

the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (citing

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

2 09cv652

Case 3:09-cv-00652-AJB-BGS Document 116 Filed 11/13/13 Page 2 of 9
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

A strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositve

pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments. Thus

compelling reasons must be shown to seal judicial records attached. See id (internal

citations omitted). Relevant factors include the “public interest in understanding the

judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use...”

Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 659 (9th Cir. 2010)(citations omitted). 

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. Id. (citing

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 

B. Defendant’s Motion to File Previously Filed Documents Under Seal

Defendants requests that certain documents and excerpts of depositions attached

as exhibits to the Motion for Summary Judgment be sealed on the grounds that they

contain confidential and proprietary information and if disclosed, would allow Booz

Allen competitors access to operational and personnel information. Defendants group

the documents into two sets: (1) Booz Allen employee appraisals and documents

describing the appraisal process and (2) deposition testimony that contain information

regarding Mr. Rich’s appraisals, Booz Allen’s internal policies and procedures, as well

as financial performance metrics. Although some of the materials have already been

declared confidential pursuant to Discovery Protective Orders (Doc. Nos. 82 and 94), the

Court must make an independent review to determine if the high standard of “compelling

reason” has been met to warrant sealing.

Although these exhibits have been public since the Summary Judgment motion

was filed on October 3, 2013, the Court may grant relief to mitigate continuing harm if

warranted. 

(1) Booz Allen Employee Appraisals and Documents Describing Booz Allen Appraisal Process

3 09cv652

Case 3:09-cv-00652-AJB-BGS Document 116 Filed 11/13/13 Page 3 of 9
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

Having reviewed the listed exhibits described as Booz Allen appraisals and

documents describing the appraisal process, the Court finds Exhibits 4-6 and 11-14 do

contain sensitive information and could be used for improper purposes by Booz Allen’s

competitors. The documents listed contain internal partnership evaluations, management

expectations and performance reviews, financial information, as well as company

strategies to improve employee performance and experience. If disseminated, Defendants argue that Booz Allen’s competitors would gain access to operational and personnel information, projections and modeling, and strategic positioning vis-a-vis its

competitors. Magistrate Judge Skomal’s findings also inform the Court’s analysis. The

Magistrate Judge determined that some documents contained information, that if

disseminated, would allows competitors to “piece together portions of [Booz Allen’s]

proprietary review system and employee development system.” (Doc. No. 94 at 3.)

On the other hand, the public would receive little benefit from the information

contained therein, and gain little insight into the judicial process. Thus Defendants have

provided compelling reasons that outweigh the presumption of public disclosure to file

those exhibits under seal. 

(2) Deposition Testimony

Attached to the Motion for Summary Judgment as Exhibits 2, 7-9, and 15 are

deposition excerpts Defendants describe as containing “testimony regarding Mr. Rich’s

appraisals, Booz Allen’s internal policies and procedures to enhance employee performance, and Booz Allen’s financial performance metrics.” (Greenfield Decl. Doc. No.

113.) Defendants fail to describe with sufficient specificity exactly what types of

information each Exhibit contains, thus the Court conducts its own review. 

Exhibit 2 is the Deposition of Dennis O. Doughty. Testimony excepts include

information that is already part of the briefs as allegations and/or defenses including Mr.

Rich’s negative performance review and details as to his retirement plans. On page 85 of

the deposition, there is reference to certain Booz Allen projects that may be considered

sensitive information that the company would want to keep confidential from competi4 09cv652

Case 3:09-cv-00652-AJB-BGS Document 116 Filed 11/13/13 Page 4 of 9
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

tors. (Doc. No. 108, Ex. 2 at 69.) To the extent that the deposition excerpts cover

information regarding those projects, Defendants may redact those portions. However,

the Court finds the rest of the information to be already a part of the public records as

they pertain to allegations and defenses with regards to Mr. Rich’s employment contract

dispute. Defendants have not provided a sufficient justification to warrant the filing of

the entirety of Exhibit 2 under seal. 

Exhibit 7 is the deposition of Samuel R. Strickland and contains information as to

Booz Allen’s partnership track, committee representation, as well as internal policies and

controls with regards to employee performance and review. Such information may be

subjected to improper use if made public. Thus like the Court’s analysis above on the

internal documents, the Court also finds a compelling justification to file Exhibit 7 under

seal. 

Exhibit 8 is the deposition of Ralph W. Shrader. The portions attached contain

information as to Mr. Rich’s performance, a vague description of partner expectations

and advancement, and plans in 2007 to separate Booz Allen and sell one portion to a

third party. This information is already in the public record as part of allegations and/or 1

defenses and any possible sensitive information is too generalized and vague to be

subjected to improper use by competitors. Thus, the Court finds that Defendants have

failed to provide a sufficient justification to warrant the filing of Exhibit 8 under seal. 

Exhibit 9 is the deposition of Theodore Shema. Information contained therein

pertain to Booz Allen’s employee review system, internal policies and standards to be

used for performance evaluation, and partnership advancement. The Court finds that

such information may be subjected to improper use by competitors. Defendants have

shown a sufficient justification to warrant Exhibit 9 to be sealed. 

Exhibit 15 is a one page excerpt of the deposition of John M. McConnell. The

Court is unable to characterize the information contained therein as confidential. Indeed,

This past strategy has been actualized and is a basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that he was pushed 1

out so that remaining partners would receive a larger profit from the sale of that portion of Booz Allen. 

5 09cv652

Case 3:09-cv-00652-AJB-BGS Document 116 Filed 11/13/13 Page 5 of 9
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

the testimony relates to Mr. McConnell’s leaving Booz Allen in 2007 and his communications with Mr. Shrader, the Court does not find this information to be sensitive and

likely subjected to improper use. Defendants have failed to provide a sufficient justification to warrant the sealing of Exhibit 15. 

C. Parties’ Joint Motion to File Documents Attached to Plaintiff’s Opposition

Under Seal

According to the parties, many of the same justifications already given also pertain

to the documents attached to Plaintiff’s Opposition. Indeed, there is a substantial

overlap in the documents both parties have attached to their respective motions. 

(1) Booz Allen Employee Appraisals and Documents Describing Booz Allen Appraisal Process

For the same reasons the Court has stated above, the Court finds that the documents attached as Exhibits B-E, G, I, K, M-N, P-Q warrant the filing under seal. These

documents pertain to Booz Allen’s partnership evaluation, internal policies and strategies, financial information and partnership distribution. Such information may be

subjected to improper use by Booz Allen competitors if publicly disseminated. The

parties have adequately described and advanced compelling reasons to justify the filing

of these documents under seal. 

(B) Booz Allen Strategic Business Documents and Financial Projections 

After a review of the motion, the declaration in support by Sarah A. Greenfield,

and the attached Exhibits, the Court finds the Exhibits attached as S and U-W also

warrant the filing of under seal. These Exhibits contain sensitive information on major

Booz Allen business projects, including military initiatives, investments and developments of specific markets, revenue projections, and strategic priorities. 

The Court finds that the materials could be used for improper purposes by

including the release of business strategies and secrets. Such information may be

utilized by business competitors seeking to gain an advantage by circumventing the time

6 09cv652

Case 3:09-cv-00652-AJB-BGS Document 116 Filed 11/13/13 Page 6 of 9
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

and resources necessary to develop their own business strategies and models. Thus the

parties have shown compelling reasons that outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure.

(C) Deposition Testimony

The parties again fail to describe with sufficient specificity as to what type of

information is contained in each of the attached exhibits. The Court must again independently review the attached documents. 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit F overlaps in large part with Defendants’ Exhibit 2, the Exhibit

is excerpts of Dennis O. Doughty’s deposition. Again, the Court finds that in large part,

information revealed is already a part of the public record as they pertain to the parties

allegations and/or defenses. There are mentions of specific Booz Allen projects, and to

the extent that the testimony relate to those projects, the parties may redact those

provisions. On page 112 of the deposition transcript, the testimony goes into information with regards to Booz Allen’s internal review system of personnel appraisals. The

Court finds that this information does qualify as sensitive and may be used by competitors to piece together portions of Booz Allen’s proprietary review and employee

development system. Thus, the parties may redact those provisions as well. 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit J overlaps with Defendants’ Exhibit 7, excerpts of Samuel R.

Strickland’s deposition and contains substantially the same information as well as

information on Booz Allen compensation policies. Like the Court’s analysis with

regards to Defendants’ Exhibit 7, the Court finds that the parties have shown a compelling justification to warrant the filing of this Exhibit under Seal. 

Plaintiff’s Exhibit H overlaps with Defendants’ Exhibit 8, although the excerpts of

Ralph W. Shrader’s deposition provided by Plaintiff are substantially different from the

excerpts provided by Defendants. The provisions the parties wish to seal in Plaintiff’s

Opposition do contain sensitive personnel information as well as internal partnership

track policies. Such information could be used for improper purposes by Booz Allen

competitors and thus the parties have shown a compelling justification to warrant the

filing of these excerpts under seal. 

7 09cv652

Case 3:09-cv-00652-AJB-BGS Document 116 Filed 11/13/13 Page 7 of 9
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

Plaintiff’s Exhibit O overlaps with Defendants’ Exhibit 9, excerpts of Theodore

Shema’s deposition and contains substantially the same information. Information

contained therein pertain to Booz Allen’s employee review system, internal policies and

standards to be used for performance evaluation, and partnership advancement. The

Court finds that such information may be subjected to improper use by competitors. 

Thus, as with Defendants’ Motion, the Court also finds a substantial justification to

warrant the filing of Exhibit O under seal. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court hereby:

1. GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal the Booz Allen Appraisals

and Documents Describing Booz Allen Appraisal Process Exhibits. (Defendants’

Exhibits: 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14).

2. GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal deposition testimony attached

as Defendants’ Exhibits 7 and 9.

3. DENIES Defendant’s Motion to File Under Seal deposition testimony attached

as Defendants’ Exhibits 2, 6 and 15. However, Defendants may redact portions of

Exhibit 2 as they pertain to Booz Allen projects as explained above. 

4. GRANTS the Joint Motion to File Under Seal the Booz Allen Appraisals and

Documents Describing Booz Allen’s Appraisal Process Exhibits. (Plaintiff’s Exhibits: B,

C, D, E, G, I, K, M, N, P, and Q). 

5. GRANTS the Joint Motion to File Under Seal Booz Allen Strategic Business

Documents and Financial Projections. (Plaintiff’s Exhibits: S, U, V, and W). 

6. GRANTS the Joint Motion to File Under Seal deposition testimony attached as

Plaintiff’s Exhibits J, H, and O. 

7. DENIES the Joint Motion to File Under Seal deposition testimony attached as

Plaintiff’s Exhibit F. However, Plaintiff may redact those portions pertaining to Booz

//

//

8 09cv652

Case 3:09-cv-00652-AJB-BGS Document 116 Filed 11/13/13 Page 8 of 9
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

 Allen projects and internal review processes as explained above.

The parties are directed to prepare a redacted version of their briefs, pursuant to

the Court’s Order, to be filed and made available publicly. The Clerk of Court is directed

to seal Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (Doc. No. 108) and file Plaintiff’s

Opposition under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 13, 2013

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. District Judge

9 09cv652

Case 3:09-cv-00652-AJB-BGS Document 116 Filed 11/13/13 Page 9 of 9