Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03935/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03935-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Fair Credit Reporting 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOHN MARK COWAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-03935-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL; 

INSTRUCTIONS TO PARTIES

[Re: ECF 132]

Defendant Synchrony Bank (“Defendant”), formerly known as GE Capital Retail Bank,

seeks to seal a number of documents in connection with its motion for summary judgment in this 

lawsuit brought under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681. Pl.’s Admin. Mot., 

ECF 132. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, and the parties are ordered to meet and confer 

regarding compliance with this order.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’” a “strong presumption 

in favor of access” to judicial records “is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & 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)). A party seeking to seal judicial records relating to a 

dispositive motion therefore bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating 

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. This standard is invoked 

“even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective 

order.” Id. at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). Compelling reasons for sealing court files 

Case 5:13-cv-03935-BLF Document 138 Filed 03/24/15 Page 1 of 6
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

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

(1978)). However, “[t]he mere 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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

Furthermore, in this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must also follow Civil 

L.R. 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Where the submitting party seeks to file under seal 

a document designated confidential by another party (the “designating party”), the burden of 

articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e). 

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant’s sealing motion can be divided into four categories of documents: (1) 

documents that plaintiff John Mark Cowan (“Plaintiff”) designated as confidential pursuant to the 

protective order entered in this action; (2) documents that Defendant designated as confidential 

because they contain Plaintiff’s personal information; (3) Defendant’s confidential trade secret 

documents; and (4) Defendant’s confidential evaluations for its employees. Defendant also seeks 

to redact portions of its motion briefing that reflect information from these documents sought to be 

sealed. The Court addresses each of these categories in turn. 

A. Plaintiff’s Confidential Documents

Defendant’s Exhibits A, B, E, G, T, CC, DD, EE, and HH were designated confidential by 

Plaintiff, and Plaintiff accordingly bears the burden under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) to set forth 

compelling reasons to seal such documents. Plaintiff filed an unorthodox “response” to 

Defendant’s sealing motion, which appears to largely oppose sealing the vast majority of 

documents that Defendant seeks to seal. See Pl.’s Response, ECF 133. To the extent Plaintiff’s 

response can be construed as a declaration in support of sealing—as required by Civil Local Rule 

79-5(e)(1) and 79-5(d)(1)(A)—he sets forth no compelling reasons establishing that all of the 

designated material is sealable. In fact, he equivocates on this point, stating for most of the 

Case 5:13-cv-03935-BLF Document 138 Filed 03/24/15 Page 2 of 6
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

documents: “unsure if all of the sections are entitled to being sealed, but will not oppose motion 

since the document shows Plaintiff’s private and personal financial information.” Pl.’s Response 

2-4 (regarding redactions to motion briefing and Exhibits A, B, T, U, AA, CC, DD, EE, HH). 

Because Plaintiff offers no compelling reasons in support of sealing, and because sealing the 

entirety of each of these exhibits is not narrowly tailored to sealing only the sealable information,

the Court DENIES Defendant’s request to seal Exhibits A, B, E, T, CC, DD, EE, and HH.

The Court acknowledges that some of these documents, such as Exhibit T, may contain 

sealable information such as Plaintiff’s credit card or account numbers. In fact, Plaintiff has 

requested that Exhibit G, a copy of his credit card, be redacted rather than sealed in its entirety. 

Id. at 2. Defendant’s sealing request is therefore GRANTED IN PART with respect to Exhibit G, 

and any other exhibit that contains Plaintiff’s credit card or account numbers. As directed below, 

the parties shall meet and confer to identify the sealable portions of each such exhibit. As to 

Exhibit G, Defendant shall redact the credit card number and file the redacted version of the 

exhibit into the public record by no later than April 3, 2015.

B. Defendant’s Confidential Documents that Contain Plaintiff’s Information

Defendant’s Exhibits H, J, K, M, N, Q, R, S, U, V, W, X, and AA contain Plaintiff’s 

personal and account information, and Defendant designated these documents confidential “as it 

would any document containing a customer’s personal and/or financial information and/or relating 

to a customer account, to protect Mr. Cowan’s privacy.” Def.’s Admin. Mot. 2-4. This generic 

statement, while admirable in its broad regard for Plaintiff’s privacy, is not sufficiently specific to 

demonstrate compelling reasons that outweigh the presumption in favor of public access. For 

example, it is not clear why Exhibit M, a blank fraud questionnaire that Defendant sent to 

Plaintiff, must be sealed to protect Plaintiff’s privacy. See id. at 2. Moreover, Plaintiff opposes 

the sealing of a number of these documents, indicating that he does not believe there is any private 

information to protect. See Pl.’s Response 2-4. As such, Defendant’s sealing request is DENIED 

with respect to Exhibits H, J, K, M, N, Q, R, S, U, V, W, X, and AA, insofar as Defendant seeks to 

seal each document in its entirety.

As discussed above, the Court acknowledges that some of these documents, such as 

Case 5:13-cv-03935-BLF Document 138 Filed 03/24/15 Page 3 of 6
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

Exhibits H and K, may contain sealable information such as Plaintiff’s credit card or account 

numbers. Defendant’s sealing request is therefore GRANTED IN PART with respect to any such 

exhibits, and the parties shall meet and confer to identify the sealable portions thereof. 

C. Defendant’s Trade Secret Documents

Defendant avers that Exhibits KK and LL contain its “confidential trade secrets.” 

Declaration of Anne M. Hunter ¶ 10(w)-(x), ECF 132-2. Exhibit KK is Defendant’s Fraud 

Procedures document and Exhibit LL is its Risk Procedures document. Id. Defendant argues that 

these documents “contain confidential and commercially sensitive information about strategies 

and policies and procedures,” the public disclosure of which “would cause Synchrony harm by 

giving third parties insights into confidential and sensitive aspects of Synchrony’s strategies and 

business operations. Def.’s Admin. Mot. 9. Plaintiff opposes sealing these documents, citing 

Howard v. Stellar Recovery, Inc., No. 12-CV-01207-RPM-BNB, 2013 WL 607826 (D. Colo. Feb. 

19, 2013), for the proposition that “Courts have denied to seal a debt collector’s form letters, 

procedures manuals, training given to employees, collection note codes and computer print 

screens/account notes.” Pl.’s Response 4.

Unlike the debt collection practices manual and handbook at issue in Howard that were 

“well known generally, and certainly well known within the debt collection industry,” 2013 WL 

607826, at *3, review of Defendant’s Exhibits KK and LL indicates that they describe internal 

procedures for addressing cardholder fraud notifications, as well as risk management and legal 

compliance in investigating fraud. Defendant avers that these documents are confidential trade 

secrets, and there is no evidence before the Court to suggest otherwise. The Court therefore finds 

that Defendant has sufficiently demonstrated compelling reasons in support of sealing its 

confidential strategies and policies and procedures. Defendant’s sealing request is accordingly 

GRANTED with respect to Exhibits KK and LL. 

D. Defendant’s Employee Evaluations

Defendant’s Exhibits NN and OO are evaluations of two of its employees—Rachel Barker 

and Richard Glick. Hunter Decl. ¶ 10(y)-(z). Defendant contends that these documents are 

“highly sensitive personnel documents” concerning non-party employees and that, as such, they 

Case 5:13-cv-03935-BLF Document 138 Filed 03/24/15 Page 4 of 6
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

should remain confidential. Def.’s Admin. Mot. 8. Plaintiff opposes sealing these documents, 

citing again to Howard for the proposition that “Courts have denied to seal a debt collector’s form 

letters, procedures manuals, training given to employees, collection note codes and computer print 

screens/account notes.” Pl.’s Response 4. Recognizing that Howard is inapposite because it does 

not address the sealing of employee evaluations, Plaintiff also cites to Fausto v. Credigy Services, 

251 F.R.D. 427 (N.D. Cal. 2008), arguing that “Courts have also ordered the production of 

personnel files without any mention of sealing.” Pl.’s Response 4. Fausto is likewise inapposite 

because it concerned the production of personnel records for individual named defendants, a 

production that the parties actually agreed to without court intervention. Fausto, 251 F.R.D. at 

430 (“[the] parties have met and conferred and Credigy has agreed to produce personnel files for 

each of the individual defendants”). Here, the Court finds persuasive Defendant’s argument that 

compelling reasons favor sealing the confidential evaluations of employees that are not party to 

this litigation. See Def.’s Admin. Mot. 8. As such, Defendant’s sealing request is GRANTED 

with respect to Exhibits NN and OO.

E. Redactions to Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities

Defendant’s request to seal portions of its summary judgment motion brief is GRANTED 

IN PART with respect to redactions that pertain to Exhibits KK, LL, NN, and OO, which are to be 

filed under seal. The request is DENIED IN PART to the extent the redactions pertain to any 

other documents, subject to the Court’s instructions below. 

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal is 

GRANTED with respect to Exhibits KK, LL, NN, and OO, and GRANTED IN PART with 

respect to Exhibit G, and with respect to any exhibit that contains Plaintiff’s credit card or account 

numbers. The motion is DENIED with respect to the remaining exhibits. 

Out of an abundance of caution, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding both 

the proposed redactions for the exhibits that may be partially sealed to protect Plaintiff’s credit 

card or account numbers and the exhibits for which the Court has denied sealing. Because all of

these documents were either designated confidential by Plaintiff or contain his personal 

Case 5:13-cv-03935-BLF Document 138 Filed 03/24/15 Page 5 of 6
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

information, Plaintiff shall identify any document, or portions thereof (including portions of 

Defendant’s summary judgment motion memorandum), that he contends should be sealed or 

redacted. To the extent the parties, after meeting and conferring, agree that any document or 

portion thereof should be sealed, they must make a renewed request to the Court. The request 

shall set forth in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed and the 

compelling reasons in support of sealing that document or portion thereof. Any renewed sealing 

request must be made by no later than April 3, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2015

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-03935-BLF Document 138 Filed 03/24/15 Page 6 of 6