Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00131/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00131-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

– 1 – 13cv131 

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 

JEFFREY MOLNAR, ET AL., 

 Plaintiffs, 

Case No. 13-cv-00131-BAS(JLB) 

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION SEEKING 

LEAVE TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 

(ECF NO. 132); 

(2) GRANTING EX PARTE 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER 

SEAL (ECF NO. 145); 

(3) GRANTING EX PARTE 

APPLICATION SEEKING 

LEAVE TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 

(ECF NO. 157); AND 

(4) GRANTING EX PARTE 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER 

SEAL (ECF NO. 161)

 v. 

NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, 

INC., 

 Defendant. 

 

 The parties have filed several unopposed ex parte motions to file documents 

under seal in connection with a Motion for Class Certification filed by Plaintiff 

Wesley Thornton (“Plaintiff”). (See ECF Nos. 132, 145, 157, 161.) 

/// 

Case 3:13-cv-00131-BAS-JLB Document 200 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 4
 – 2 – 13cv131 

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 

I. LEGAL STANDARD 

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy 

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” 

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

Nixon v. Warner Communs., 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.” Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. 

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records 

relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with 

“compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public 

policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178–79. 

 Records attached to non-dispositive motions, however, are not subject to the 

strong presumption of access. Id. at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the 

underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” 

standard of Rule 26(c). Id. (internal quotations omitted). “[A] particularized 

showing of ‘good cause’ under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) is sufficient to 

preserve the secrecy of sealed discovery documents attached to non-dispositive 

motions.” In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 

1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (requiring a 

“particularized showing” of good cause); Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 

F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A blanket protective order is not itself sufficient to 

show “good cause” for sealing particular documents. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133; 

Beckman Indus., Inc., 966 F.2d at 476; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 

N. Dist., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). 

Unless the denial of a motion for class certification would constitute the death 

knell of a case, “the vast majority of []courts within this circuit” treat motions for 

class certification as non-dispositive motions to which the “good cause” sealing 

Case 3:13-cv-00131-BAS-JLB Document 200 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 4
 – 3 – 13cv131 

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 

standard applies. Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, No. 12-cv-02549-WHA(NJV), 

2013 WL 1435223, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) (citing In re High–Tech Employee 

Antitrust Litig., No. 11-cv-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 163779, at *2 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 

15, 2013) (compiling cases and, though recognizing that “there may be circumstances 

in which a motion for class certification is case dispositive,” stating that “the Court 

applies a ‘good cause’ standard here in accordance with the vast majority of other 

courts within this circuit”))). 

II. DISCUSSION 

A. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Ex Parte Application (ECF No. 132) 

Plaintiff seeks to file certain documents under seal in connection with the filing 

of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiff states Defendant NCO 

Financial Systems Inc. (“NCO”) designated several of the documents “confidential” 

pursuant to the Protective Order in this case because the documents contain 

proprietary information relating to NCO’s “internal accounts and also their call logs 

and collection efforts.” (ECF No. 132 at p. 3, lines 17-19.) Plaintiff also seeks to 

file under seal documents that contain, reference, quote, and attach “personal 

identifiers,” including Social Security numbers, dates of birth, financial account 

numbers, and home addresses. (Id. at p. 4, lines 2-5.) Lastly, Plaintiff seeks to file 

under seal records of Plaintiff’s accounts with certain creditors and other personal 

financial information. (Id. at p. 4, lines 10-11.) Having reviewed the lodged 

documents, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed ex 

parte application seeking leave to file the documents lodged at ECF No. 133 under 

seal. 

B. NCO’s Unopposed Ex Parte Motion (ECF No. 145) 

NCO seeks to file certain documents under seal in conjunction with NCO’s 

opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification. NCO argues several of the 

lodged documents contain third party account information, which they are prohibited 

from placing on the public record by virtue of federal law and contractual restrictions. 

Case 3:13-cv-00131-BAS-JLB Document 200 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 4
 – 4 – 13cv131 

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 

NCO also asserts certain lodged documents contain information amounting to trade 

secrets and confidential commercial information. Having reviewed the lodged 

documents, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS NCO’s unopposed ex 

parte motion seeking leave to file the documents lodged at ECF Nos. 146 and 147 

under seal. 

C. Plaintiff’s Unopposed Ex Parte Application (ECF No. 157) 

Plaintiff seeks to file certain documents under seal in connection with the filing 

of his reply in support of his Motion for Class Certification. Plaintiff argues good 

cause exists to file the lodged documents under seal because they constitute 

proprietary business information. Having reviewed the lodged documents, and good 

cause appearing, the Court GRANTS NCO’s unopposed ex parte application seeking 

leave to file the documents lodged at ECF No. 158 under seal. 

D. NCO’s Unopposed Ex Parte Motion (ECF No. 161) 

NCO seeks to file certain documents under seal in connection with the filing 

of its surreply to the Motion for Class Certification for the same reasons discussed in 

its prior motion to seal (ECF No. 145). Having reviewed the lodged documents, and 

good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS NCO’s unopposed ex parte motion 

seeking leave to file the documents lodged at ECF No. 162 under seal. 

III. CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the unopposed ex parte

motions to seal (ECF Nos. 132, 145, 157, 161). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 30, 2015 

 

Case 3:13-cv-00131-BAS-JLB Document 200 Filed 09/30/15 Page 4 of 4