Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01524/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01524-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332nr Diversity-Notice of Removal

---

– 1 – 16cv1524

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

SHANNON DALE PRICE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 16-cv-1524-BAS-BLM

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION TO SEAL

[ECF No. 87]

v.

SYNAPSE GROUP, INC.; 

SYNAPSECONNECT, INC.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is a motion to seal filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ pending 

motion for class certification. (ECF No. 87.) Plaintiffs seek to seal five documents 

in whole or in part based on Defendants’ confidentiality designations. (Id.) They 

have filed a redacted public version of the motion for class certification. (ECF No. 

86.) Plaintiffs have also lodged the proposed sealed or redacted documents. (ECF 

No. 88.) Pursuant to the parties’ protective order, Defendants have responded with 

arguments for why the information should remain under seal. (ECF No. 93.) For the 

reasons herein, the Court grants in part and denies in Plaintiffs’ motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the 

strong presumption of access to public records and documents, including judicial 

documents and records. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 

Case 3:16-cv-01524-BAS-BLM Document 100 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
– 2 – 16cv1524

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

(9th Cir. 2003); see also Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). 

The showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to 

be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the 

case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 

2016). When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, 

the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying 

motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard 

applies. Id.

The compelling reason standard applies to a motion for class certification. 

McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., No. 17-cv-00986-BAS-AGS, 2018 WL 

3629945, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2018). This is because such a motion “generally 

involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising 

plaintiff’s cause of action,” which require a district court to engage in a “rigorous 

analysis” that “entail[s] some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff’s underlying 

claims.” Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 351, 352 (2011) (citation and 

quotation omitted). For this reason, courts frequently apply the compelling reasons 

standard to a motion to seal a document filed in connection with a motion for class 

certification. See McCurley, 2018 WL 3629945, at *2; Baker v. Seaworld Entm’t, 

Inc., No. 14-cv-2129-MMA (AGS), 2017 WL 5029612, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 

2017) (applying compelling reasons standard to motion to seal filed in connection 

with exhibits to motion for class certification); Opperman v. Path, Inc., No. 13-cv00453-JST, 2017 WL 1036652, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2017) (same); Lucas v. 

Breg, Inc., No. 15-cv-00258-BAS-NLS, 2016 WL 5464549, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 

28, 2016) (same).

DISCUSSION

Defendants assert that five exhibits Plaintiffs have placed under seal should 

remain under seal because “they discuss either business strategy and competitive 

market practices, or confidential pricing and financial data,” which “if revealed to 

Case 3:16-cv-01524-BAS-BLM Document 100 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
– 3 – 16cv1524

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

Synapse’s competitors, could cause Synapse competitive injury.” (ECF No. 93 at 1.) 

Defendants have submitted a declaration from Eileen Peacock, Synapse’s Vice 

President of Partnership Marketing and Sales, which describes the sensitive nature of 

Exhibits 21 through 24 and why their disclosure would harm Synapse. (ECF No. 93-

1.) The Court largely agrees with Defendants’ response, but finds that it is not 

appropriate to seal Exhibit 18.

1. Exhibit 22 

There are compelling reasons to maintain Exhibit 22 under seal in its entirety. 

The exhibit contains pricing and financial information related to certain partners and 

customers of Synapse, which could harm Synapse’s competitive standing if it were 

disclosed. See Baker, 2017 WL 5029612, at *5 (finding it appropriate to maintain 

under seal information related to “pricing and marketing strategies” because 

“disclosure . . . could lead to an improper use by competitors[]”); see also Schneider 

v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 16-cv-02200-HSG, 2018 WL 4510731 (N.D. 

Cal. Sept. 18, 2018) (granting motions to seal documents with pricing information). 

The Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion as to Exhibit 22 for this reason.

2. Exhibits 21, 23 and 24

There are also compelling reasons to redact portions of Exhibit 21 and 

maintain Exhibits 23 and 24 under seal in their entirety. These exhibits contain 

various types of Synapse’s proprietary information, which would qualify as trade 

secret information for which sealing is appropriate even under the compelling reasons 

standard. See In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. App’x 568, 570 (9th Cir. 2008); Watts 

v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 09-cv-829 WQH (WVG), 2010 WL 11508844, at *3 (S.D. 

Cal. Oct. 7, 2010). For example, Exhibit 21 contains Synapse’s database information 

for its magazine marketing business, which Synapse has built at substantial cost and 

maintains under secrecy. (Peacock Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9, 11.) Exhibit 23 contains Synapse’s 

proprietary protocol for customer retention, which is discussed in Exhibit 24. 

Disclosure of this information could affect Defendants’ competitiveness in the 

Case 3:16-cv-01524-BAS-BLM Document 100 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
– 4 – 16cv1524

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

marketplace and it is therefore appropriate to maintain the exhibits under seal. The 

Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion as to Exhibits 21, 23 and 24 for this reason.

3. Exhibit 18

Finally, the Court does not find compelling reasons to maintain Exhibit 18 

under seal. The exhibit which Defendants contend should remain under seal is 

deposition testimony from Synapse Group Inc.’s president which suggests that 

Synapse controls the text in a Bizrate survey invite box. Bizrate is a wholly-owned 

subsidiary of Synapse, which both Plaintiffs and Defendants acknowledge. (ECF 

No. 86 at 10; ECF No. 93-2 at 1.) The information contained in Exhibit 18 is entirely 

consistent with this relationship. Defendants fail to articulate any concrete 

competitive harm disclosure would potentially cause. (ECF No. 93-2 at 1.) The 

Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion as to Exhibit 18. 

CONCLUSION & ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN 

PART Plaintiff’s motion to seal. (ECF No. 87.) The Court GRANTS the motion as 

to Exhibits 21, 22, 23, and 24. These exhibits may be filed under seal and references 

to these exhibits may be redacted as appropriate. The Court DENIES the motion as 

to Exhibit 18.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 1, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-01524-BAS-BLM Document 100 Filed 10/01/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4