Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02086/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02086-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 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

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:

MDL Dkt. Nos. 6386, 6387, 6605, 6821,

6825, 6827

Napleton, No. 3:16-cv-2086-CRB 

_____________________________________/

MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)

ORDER (I) DENYING MOTION FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION, (II) 

DENYING MOTION TO EXCLUDE

EXPERT TESTIMONY, AND (III) 

GRANTING MOTIONS TO SEAL

In a separate Order issued today, the Court granted the Bosch defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment on all of the named-plaintiff-dealerships’ claims. (See MDL Dkt. No. 6956.) 

In light of that decision, the Court now DENIES as moot (i) the dealers’ motion for class 

certification (see MDL Dkt. No. 6387), and (ii) the dealers’ motion to exclude an expert report that 

the Bosch defendants submitted in opposition to class certification (see MDL Dkt. No. 6827).

The Court also addresses several motions to seal. The dealers and the Bosch defendants 

seek to seal numerous exhibits that they included with their briefing on class certification and on 

the motion to exclude. (See MDL Dkt. Nos. 6386, 6605, 6821, 6825.) Many of the exhibits 

identify technical details about the Bosch defendants’ emissions software. Others detail the 

dealers’ finances. 

If the Court had considered the motion for class certification and the motion to exclude, the 

parties’ interests in keeping these exhibits confidential may not have outweighed the public’s right 

of access. However, because the Court did not consider the motions—and denied them as moot—

the scale tips the other way. The presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents is 

Case 3:16-cv-02086-CRB Document 208 Filed 12/06/19 Page 1 of 2
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

based on the public policies of “judicial accountability” and “education about the judicial 

process.” Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 

2002). For the exhibits in question, these policies carry little weight. To understand the judicial 

process, the public may review the parties’ briefing and evidence (and the Court’s Order) on 

summary judgment. Those documents are publicly available and reveal how this case was 

decided. The exhibits to the motion for class certification and to the motion to exclude, in 

contrast, do not offer insight into the judicial process, because the Court did not consider them. 

The parties have an interest in keeping their technical and financial information 

confidential. Although that interest is not absolute, it outweighs the public’s right of access under 

the circumstances. The Court therefore GRANTS the parties’ motions to seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2019

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02086-CRB Document 208 Filed 12/06/19 Page 2 of 2