Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02502/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02502-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTONIO ESQUIVEL and BEATRIZ

ESQUIVEL, individually, on

behalf of all others

similarly situated, and on

behalf of the general public,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK 

OF AMERICA CORPORATION,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-cv-02502-GEB-KJN

ORDER REGARDING STIPULATED 

SEALING REQUEST

On July 2, 2015, the parties submitted for in camera 

consideration a Stipulated Request to Seal Class Certification 

Documents, a declaration in support thereof, the documents sought 

to be sealed, a proposed redacted version of Plaintiffs’ Motion 

for Class Certification, and a proposed sealing order. 

The parties seek to file the following documents under 

seal in their entirety for a period of no less than six years: an 

unredacted version of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification 

and exhibits 1, 2, 4, 8-13, and 15 to the Declaration of Noah

Zinner in support thereof. The parties argue:

All of these documents have been 

designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to the 

Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order and 

there is good cause to seal these documents. 

Some of these documents contain confidential 

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 81 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 8
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

and proprietary information of Bank of 

America that is not available to Bank of 

America’s competitors or the public at large. 

Public disclosure of this information would 

harm Bank of America and put it at a 

competitive disadvantage. Other of these 

documents contain personal financial 

information of Plaintiffs. 

(Notice Stipulated Req. to Seal (“Notice”) 3:3-8, ECF No. 80.) 

Specifically, the parties argue:

Zinner Decl. Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 

contain individual personal information that 

is protected from disclosure, borrower 

specific and/or credit applicant specific 

information that is derived using nonpublic 

personal information, and/or information 

regarding Plaintiffs’ banking or lending 

relationships, including information 

regarding Plaintiffs’ mortgage or credit 

history.

Zinner Decl. Exhibits 4, 8-13 and 15 

contain information that constitutes a trade 

secret, and/or reflecting non-public business 

strategies, and/or confidential competitive 

information which, if disclosed, would result 

in competitive harm to [Defendants]. . . . 

. . . Bank of America’s servicing 

records (Exhibit 4), policies and procedures 

(Exhibit 12), and the excerpts from the 

deposition transcripts of Bank of America 

employees . . . (Exhibits 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 

15) contain information related to Bank of 

America’s loan servicing and modification 

practices that are proprietary to Bank of 

America. Bank of America’s loan servicing and 

modification practices are complex business 

operations that depend on a sophisticated 

body of internal policies and procedures that 

require significant time and human resources 

to develop and thus have substantial value to 

the bank. Filing them on a public docket 

would disadvantage Bank of America by making 

information about its proprietary, internal 

policies available to other institutions that 

have not invested the time and resources 

necessary to develop them. 

(Stipulated Req. to Seal (“Req.”) 4:3-5:24 (internal quotation 

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 81 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 8
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

marks, citations, and alternations omitted).)

The parties also “request an order permitting 

Plaintiffs to file a redacted version of their Motion for Class 

Certification, because portions of the Motion reference or 

discuss confidential or proprietary information contained in the 

aforementioned [exhibits].” (Notice 3:12-15.)

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Courts have long recognized a ‘general right to 

inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 

records and documents.’” Williams v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 290 

F.R.D. 600, 604 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). “Unless a particular 

court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana 

v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 

1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “In order to overcome this strong 

presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must 

articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the 

historical right of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure.” Williams, 290 F.R.D. at 604 (citing Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1178-79).

“Two standards generally govern [requests] to seal 

documents . . . .” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 

677 (9th Cir. 2010). “[J]udicial records attached to dispositive 

motions [are treated] differently from records attached to nondispositive motions.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. “[T]he 

resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or 

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 81 Filed 07/10/15 Page 3 of 8
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

4

summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the 

public’s understanding of the judicial process and of significant 

public events.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Valley 

Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 

1986)). “Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a judicial record 

attached to a dispositive motion or one that is presented at 

trial must articulate ‘compelling reasons’ in favor of sealing.” 

Williams, 290 F.R.D. at 604 (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178).

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the 

public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records 

exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for 

improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private 

spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or 

release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting 

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “‘[S]ources of business information that 

might harm a litigant’s competitive standing’ often warrant 

protection under seal.” Williams, 290 F.R.D. at 604 (alteration 

in original) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 

In contrast, “[t]he Ninth Circuit has determined that 

the public’s interest in non-dispositive motions is relatively 

lower than its interest in trial or a dispositive motion. 

Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a document attached to a 

non-dispositive motion need only demonstrate ‘good cause’ to 

justify sealing.” Williams, 290 F.R.D. at 604 (citing Pintos, 605 

F.3d at 678). Even under the lesser “good cause” standard, “‘the 

party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific 

prejudice or harm will result’ if the request to seal is denied.” 

Ross v. Bar None Enters., No. 2:13-cv-00234-KJM-KJN, 2014 WL 

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 81 Filed 07/10/15 Page 4 of 8
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

5

2700901, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2014) (quoting Phillips ex 

rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 

(9th Cir. 2002)). The movant “must make a ‘particularized 

showing’ with respect to any individual document in order to 

justify [its] sealing . . . .” Herskowitz v. Apple, Inc., No. 12-

CV-02131-LHK, 2014 WL 3920036, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2014) 

(quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180). “‘Broad allegations of 

harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated 

reasoning’ are insufficient.” Ross, 2014 WL 2700901, at *2 

(quoting Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 

476 (9th Cir. 1992)).

“The Ninth Circuit has not yet addressed whether or 

not, or under what circumstances, a motion for class 

certification is a dispositive motion for purposes of deciding 

what standard applies on sealing motions, and . . . [district] 

courts in [the Ninth Circuit] have reached different 

conclusions.” Herskowitz, 2014 WL 3920036, at *2 (internal 

quotation marks, citation, and brackets omitted). The parties 

contend the good cause standard applies to their joint sealing 

request, although they argue their requests “also meet[] the 

higher ‘compelling reason’ standard.” (Req. 3:20-22, 3 n.1.) 

The Court need not decide which standard applies to the 

instant request since the parties have not provided sufficient 

justification to seal the majority of the documents under the 

lesser good cause standard, and Defendants have shown that the 

remaining document should be sealed under the heightened 

compelling interest standard. 

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 81 Filed 07/10/15 Page 5 of 8
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

6

II. DISCUSSION

The parties have not shown good cause to seal Exhibit 1 

(Commitment and Offer to Modify Mortgage and for Partial Claim 

dated February 15, 2012), Exhibit 2 (Loan Modification 

Agreement), and Exhibit 4 (excerpt from Bank of America’s 

servicing records concerning Plaintiffs’ account). “Although [the 

parties] allege the[se] documents” contain “individual personal 

information that is protected from disclosure, . . . including 

information regarding Plaintiffs’ mortgage or credit history[,]” 

the documents “do[] not actually appear to involve any 

information of this nature.” In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust 

Litig., No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 163779, at *9 (N.D. Cal. 

Jan. 15, 2013). For example, Plaintiffs’ account number is 

partially redacted in Exhibits 1 and 2 as required by Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a). Further, Exhibit 1 is referenced 

in the Complaint, (see Compl. && 17, 18, ECF No. 1), and Exhibit 

2 is an attachment to the Complaint. (Id. Ex. 2.) See Lane v. 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 12-04026 WHA, 2013 WL 2627487, at 

*1 (N.D. Cal. June 11, 2013) (denying request to seal information 

available on the public docket); accord Apple Inc. v. Samsung 

Elec. Co. Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG), 2012 WL 4120541, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 18, 2012). Also, although the parties assert

Exhibit 4 “contain[s] information related to Bank of America’s 

loan servicing and modification practices” the disclosure of 

which “would disadvantage Bank of America[,]” “[t]he information 

contained in this exhibit “is not sufficiently detailed to be 

likely to result in competitive harm to [Defendants], and [the 

parties] ha[ve] not established with sufficient particularity 

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 81 Filed 07/10/15 Page 6 of 8
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

7

that any portion constitutes information that is . . . 

protectable.” Lane, 2013 WL 2627487, at * 2; accord Welle v. 

Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 3:12-cv-3016 EMC (KAW), 

2013 WL 6055369, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2013) (stating “the 

limited material at issue does not appear to be sufficiently 

detailed to be likely to result in competitive harm”). 

Accordingly, the request to seal Exhibits 1, 2, and 4 is DENIED. 

The parties also have not shown good cause justifies 

sealing Exhibits 8-11, 13, and 15 (portions of certain deposition 

transcripts). Although the referenced transcripts concern 

Defendants’ loan servicing and modification practices, “the 

information actually discussed in the transcript[s] is too 

general or nonspecific to warrant sealing.” Lane, 2013 WL 

2627487, at *2. Therefore, the request to seal Exhibits 8-11, 13, 

and 15 is DENIED.

The parties have provided compelling reasons to seal 

Exhibit 12 (Bank of America policy and procedure document 

regarding credit corrections). This document “is an outline” of 

the procedures “implemented by Defendants” to correct a 

homeowner’s credit report once his or her loan has been modified. 

Davis v. Social Serv. Coordinators, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-02372-LJOSKO, 2012 WL 1940677, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 29, 2012). “[S]hould 

it be disseminated publically, [it] may allow Defendants’ 

competitors to reap the benefit of the [outlined procedures] 

without having to incur the costs associated with developing 

the[m].” Id.; accord Hart v. U.S. Bank NA, No. CV 12-2471-PHXJAT, 2013 WL 5965637, at *10 (D. Ariz. Nov. 8, 2013) (granting 

request to seal credit policies stating “[t]hese policies contain 

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 81 Filed 07/10/15 Page 7 of 8
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

8

detailed information regarding Defendant’s underwriting decision 

making process[,]” and “include credit decision matrixes which 

calculate credit decisions”). Therefore, the request to seal 

Exhibit 12 is GRANTED. 

Further, the request to file the proposed redacted 

version of Plaintiff’s class certification motion is DENIED since 

the parties have not provided sufficient justification for the 

proposed redactions. Even the motion’s reference to Exhibit 12, 

which this order decides may be filed under seal, is too general 

to support redaction. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, the parties’ stipulated sealing 

request is granted in part and denied in part. It is denied 

except to the extent Defendants request to seal Exhibit 12 to the 

Declaration of Noah Zinner. Defendants shall provide to the Clerk 

an electronic copy of this exhibit to be filed under seal as 

prescribed in Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i).

Dated: July 10, 2015

Case 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN Document 81 Filed 07/10/15 Page 8 of 8