Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00902-57/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, 

HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and 

PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and 

on behalf of all others 

similarly situated and all 

aggrieved employees,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC

ORDER

----oo0oo----

Plaintiffs request to seal certain exhibits to their 

motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to the parties’ 

stipulated protective order. (Docket No. 361.) These exhibits

are defendant Charter’s sales commission plan for account 

executives and accompanying attachments.1 (Docket Nos. 360-10 to 

1 While plaintiffs move to seal, the documents originated 

from defendant.

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 364 Filed 02/12/24 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

2

-12.)

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public 

access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Where a party seeks to seal an attachment 

related to a dispositive pleading, the party must “articulate 

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 

favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding 

the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citations omitted). The 

court then must balance the competing interests of the public and 

the party seeking to keep records secret. Id. at 1179.

Charter seeks to have these exhibits sealed because (1) 

Charter has designated them as Confidential; (2) Charter contends 

that they contain confidential, personal, and proprietary 

information; (3) Charter has maintained them as confidential 

pursuant to their regular business practices; and (4) Charter 

contends that there is no clear public interest in publicly 

disclosing the information therein. (Docket No. 361 at 1.)

The court is unpersuaded. The parties point to nothing

in their entirely conclusory pleadings on this motion to suggest 

that confidentiality would outweigh the public’s strong interest 

in an open court process -- all the stronger when documents bear 

on a dispositive pleading. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. 

As this court has previously pointed out to these same litigants, 

a confidentiality agreement between the parties does not per se

constitute a compelling reason to seal documents. (See Docket 

No. 110.) See also Feb. 5, 2016 Order at 3, Wilson v. Conair 

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 364 Filed 02/12/24 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

3

Corp., Civ. No. 1:14-cv-00894; Oct. 8, 2014 Order at 2, Starbucks 

Corp. v. Amcor Packaging Distrib., Civ. No. 2:13-1754; Sept. 3, 

2015 Order at 3, Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain 

Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Civ. No. 1:14-00953; Sept. 18, 

2015 Order at 2, Rosales v. City of Chico, Civ. No. 2:14-02152. 

The fact that the assigned magistrate judge signed the stipulated 

protective order does not change this principle.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request to 

seal (Docket No. 361) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without 

prejudice to the parties submitting a more tailored request, such 

as redacting specific portions of these exhibits, which states 

with particularity the basis for redacting or sealing the 

documents and why defendant’s harm absent such measures would 

outweigh public policies favoring disclosure.2

Dated: February 9, 2024

2 Before so doing, the parties are directed to carefully 

review the grounds on which the court denied the previous request 

to seal. (See Docket No. 110.)

Case 2:19-cv-00902-WBS-DMC Document 364 Filed 02/12/24 Page 3 of 3