Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04810/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04810-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

TANSEER KAZI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PNC BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-04810-JCS 

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’

REPLY

Re: Dkt. No. 89

Plaintiffs Tanseer Kazi and Linda Scheid filed an administrative motion to seal portions of 

their reply brief regarding class certification and an attached declaration on the sole basis that

Defendant PNC Bank, N.A. (“PNC”) designated material contained therein as confidential. See

dkt. 80. The Court denied that motion because PNC failed to file a responsive declaration in 

support of sealing as required by Civil Local Rule 19-5(e), but allowed PNC to file its own motion 

and explain why it failed to file a declaration. See dkt. 86.

PNC now moves to seal portions of the materials at issue. See dkt. 89. “Counsel for PNC 

mistakenly believed that the declarations filed in support of the administrative motions to file 

under seal that were submitted in connection with the Motion for Class Certification and the 

Opposition thereto were sufficient to explain the reason for sealing similar confidential materials 

filed with Plaintiffs’ Reply.” Rejali Decl. (dkt. 89-1) ¶ 3. The Court’s local rules require a

responsive declaration each time an opponent seeks to seal its filings based on a party’s

designation of confidentiality. The standard for designating discovery material as confidential is 

relatively low in most cases, and the Court relies on the designating party to identify which 

portions of that material it believes meets the more stringent standard of “compelling reasons” to 

rebut the presumption of public access to judicial proceedings1—as PNC has now done here.

1

See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016).

Case 3:18-cv-04810-JCS Document 90 Filed 01/28/20 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

The Court notes and appreciates PNC’s restraint in now moving to seal only a fraction of 

the material that Plaintiffs, in an abundance of caution, redacted from their original filing. 

Nevertheless, the Court is not persuaded that compelling reasons warrant sealing the broad outline

of how PNC structures its compensation of loan officers (which was discussed on the record at the 

January 24, 2020 hearing), or that any competitive harm is likely to befall PNC if such an outline

is disclosed in Plaintiffs’ filings. PNC has shown compelling reasons to seal only the specific 

figures regarding loan officer compensation and similar details of the compensation plan. PNC’s 

administrative motion is therefore GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as follows:

A. Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief

Page 4: GRANTED only as to the dollar value of the salary at line 10; otherwise DENIED.

Page 5: DENIED as to all proposed redactions.

Page 6: DENIED as to all proposed redactions.

Page 7: GRANTED only as to the dollar value at line 21; otherwise DENIED.

Page 8: GRANTED only as to the dollar values and numbers of employees; otherwise 

DENIED. For example, in PNC’s first proposed redaction in footnote 15, the words “the gross 

amount of,” “across,” and “MLOs” may not be redacted.

Page 9: DENIED as to the only proposed redaction.

B. Supplemental Declaration of James Sitkin

Exhibit 2: GRANTED as to all proposed redactions.

Exhibit 3: GRANTED only as to the proposed redactions on lines 24 and 25 of page 266;

otherwise DENIED.

* * *

Plaintiffs shall file public versions of their reply brief and the supplemental declaration of 

James Sitkin consistent with this order no later than February 3, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2020

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04810-JCS Document 90 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 2