Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00554/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00554-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:0552pa Right to Privacy 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

TIMOTHY BARRETT,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv554-LAB (KSC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

SEAL;

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT

ADDITIONAL MOTION TO SEAL;

ORDER DECERTIFYING CLASS;

AND

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S

RESPONSE

vs.

WESLEY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC,

Defendant.

In this class action, the Court certified two classes: a damages-seeking class under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), and an injunction-seeking class under Rule 23(b)(2). The parties

stipulated to an injunction, which the Court has issued.

Plaintiff has filed a redacted motion to decertify the damages-seeking class, along

with a motion for leave to file documents under seal. (Docket nos. 75, 76.) The Court has

previously addressed the question of whether the question of certification is dispositive and

has concluded that it is not, and that therefore the “good cause” standard discussed in

Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9 Cir. 2002) th

applies. (See Docket no. 56 at 2:1–11.) The documents to be sealed consist of Wesley

Financial Group’s financial information (Exhibits A and B) and an unredacted memorandum

- 1 - 13cv554

Case 3:13-cv-00554-LAB-KSC Document 93 Filed 02/10/16 Page 1 of 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

of points and authorities. A protective order has already been issued with respect to this

information. The court agrees that disclosure of Wesley Financial’s non-public financial

information would result in harm or prejudice to that business. 

The redacted motion speaks with enough generality that the public would know the

general nature of the facts in the sealed documents, even without knowing the specifics. 

The information redacted out shows that Wesley’s financial situation is such that it could not

pay class-wide damages, and a class action is no longer a superior method of adjudicating

the damages-seeking class’s claims. The Court therefore finds good cause for sealing, and

the motion for leave to file documents under seal is GRANTED. 

A second motion for leave to file documents under seal (Docket no. 81) is still

pending. Because the motion those documents pertain to has been withdrawn, the motion

to seal is DENIED AS MOOT.

Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition to Plaintiff’s decertification motion, and

agrees that it could not pay damages. The only dispute between the parties is whether the

class should be decertified with or without prejudice. 

Decisions to certify or decertify classes are normally identified as being with or without

prejudice, because they do not involve adjudication of rights or claims. And here, as noted,

the Court has determined that the issue of class certification is nondispositive. Courts

sometimes specify that decertification is to be without prejudice, but principally when it is

expected that a second certification motion may follow in the same case. See, e.g., In re

Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litigation, 2014 WL 6783763, *2 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 25, 2014)

(noting that court had decertified the class, but had given leave to renew the certification

motion); Grayson v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 2011 WL 2414378, at *6 (S.D. Cal., June 10, 2011)

(decertifying class without prejudice to renewal of a motion for class certification). Given the

posture of this case, it that is unlikely to happen.

The Court finds Barrett’s motion well-taken, GRANTS the motion, and ORDERS as

follows:

1. The statutory class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), is hereby

- 2 - 13cv554

Case 3:13-cv-00554-LAB-KSC Document 93 Filed 02/10/16 Page 2 of 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

DECERTIFIED, as the Court finds the "superiority" requirement under Rule

23(b)(3) is no longer satisfied in light of Defendant's poor financial status;

2. The injunctive relief class, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2),

remains CERTIFIED (see Docket No. 66); and,

3. The Court finds that notice to the Class Members of class action

status is not necessary in this case for an injunctive relief class only, as the

Class Members' statutory damages claims are not being released.

With this order, the Court believes the claims in this case have been fully adjudicated. 

If Plaintiff disagrees, he must file a notice stating what claims remain to be adjudicated,

within seven calendar days of the date this order is issued. If he does not file such a

notice, the Court will assume the remaining claims have all been resolved. Alternatively, the

parties may file a joint motion to dismiss the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 9, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv554

Case 3:13-cv-00554-LAB-KSC Document 93 Filed 02/10/16 Page 3 of 3