Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00304/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00304-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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 

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AMIE HOLAK, 

 Plaintiff,

v. 

KMART CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants.

1:12-cv-00304 AWI MJS HC 

ORDER REGARDING REQUEST TO SEAL 

DOCUMENTS 

(Doc. 84) 

RESPONSE BY DEFENDANTS DUE 

WITHIN TEN (14) DAYS 

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Amie Holak's motion for class certification. 

(See ECF No. 82.) Plaintiff has also filed a notice of request to seal documents provided 

in support of the class certification motion. Specifically, it appears that Plaintiff seeks to 

seal information contained on page 2 of the memorandum of points and authorities in 

support of the motion for class certification, and exhibits A and D attached to the 

declaration of Raul Perez. 

Rather than provide the Court reasons why the documents should be sealed, 

Plaintiff informs the Court that the documents were designated confidential by 

Defendant, and therefore Plaintiff is obligated to file the documents under seal pursuant 

to the terms of the protective order. However, "Plaintiff takes no position as to the 

confidential nature of these documents." 

As described below, the fact that Defendants deemed the documents to be 

Case 1:12-cv-00304-AWI-MJS Document 87 Filed 02/06/14 Page 1 of 5
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 

confidential is not a sufficient basis to grant the request to seal. Accordingly, Defendants, 

as the party asserting that the information is confidential, are required to file a request to 

seal the documents in compliance with Local Rule 141 and provide "compelling reasons" 

why the documents are entitled to sealing. 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

In this proposed class action Plaintiff asserts various wage and hour allegations 

against Defendants Kmart Corporation and Sears Holdings Management Corporation. 

(2nd Am. Compl., ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff presents claims of various wage and hour 

violations, including, but not limited to, claims that Plaintiff and those similarly situated 

were not compensated for time spent when employees were not allowed to leave the 

premises after clocking out at closing. (See P&A in support of Mot. to Certify at 1, ECF 

No. 82.) Plaintiffs appear to request to seal documents relating to Defendant's store 

closing procedures. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR SEALING DOCUMENTS 

Courts have long recognized a "general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (denying release of the "Nixon tapes" that were played in 

open court and entered into evidence). "This right extends to pretrial documents filed in 

civil cases." Estate of Migliaccio v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. (In re Midlan Nat'l Life Ins. Co. 

Annuity Sales Practices Lit.), 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam). "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. See id. at 1178-79. 

The 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 

Case 1:12-cv-00304-AWI-MJS Document 87 Filed 02/06/14 Page 2 of 5
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 

party seeking to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive motion need only 

demonstrate "good cause" to justify sealing. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 

665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying "good cause" standard to all non-dispositive motions 

because such motions "are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying 

cause of action"). "The party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific 

prejudice or harm will result if no [protection] is granted." Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). That party must make a "particularized showing

of good cause with respect to any individual document." San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. 

U.S. Dist. Court, N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (emphasis 

added). "Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated 

reasoning" are insufficient. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th 

Cir.) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3rd Cir. 1986)), cert. 

denied, 506 U.S. 868, 113 S. Ct. 197, 121 L. Ed. 2d 140 (1992). 

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

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 Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nev., 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. See id. at 1178. "The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a 

litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without 

more, compel the court to seal its records." Id. at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). 

"In general, 'compelling reasons' . . . 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." Id. 

(citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 

Under the "compelling reasons" standard, a district court must weigh "relevant 

factors," base its decision "on a compelling reason," and "articulate the factual basis for 

Case 1:12-cv-00304-AWI-MJS Document 87 Filed 02/06/14 Page 3 of 5
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 

its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 (quoting 

Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). "[S]ources of business 

information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing" often warrant protection 

under seal. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. 

Here, the request to seal is filed in conjunction with a motion for class certification. 

The Court finds that the compelling reason standard should also apply to the class 

certification motions. See Davis v. Devanlay Retail Group, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

109798, 4 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2012) (class certification "is one that will affect whether or 

not the litigation proceeds, the motion is considered dispositive and subject to the 

compelling reasons standard."); contra In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness 

Licensing Litig., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85375, 11 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2013). 

III. ANALYSIS 

First, the requests to seal are improper under the standards articulated by the 

Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, the request to seal is DENIED without prejudice. 

Defendants, as the party asserting the need for confidentiality, shall be ordered to 

file a request to seal the documents and provide "compelling reasons" why the 

documents should be sealed. 

Defendants are cautioned that "conclusory arguments" and "blanket" assertions 

that documents are "confidential and proprietary" are insufficient to overcome the 

presumption against sealing. Ingram v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

136887, 9-10 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2013) (citing Wells Fargo & Co. v. ABD Ins. & Fin. 

Servs., No. 12-cv-3856-PJH, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32593, 2013 WL 897914, at *2 (N.D. 

Cal. Mar. 8, 2013)). The Ninth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion, has identified a trade 

secret as "any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in 

one's business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over 

competitors who do not know or use it." In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App'x 568, 569 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (quoting Restatement of Torts § 757, cmt. b). In that case, applying 

Kamakana and Nixon, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court for refusing to seal 

Case 1:12-cv-00304-AWI-MJS Document 87 Filed 02/06/14 Page 4 of 5
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 

information that qualified under this standard. In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. App'x. at 

569. On the other hand, information does not have value to a competitor merely because 

the competitor does not have access to it." Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Centex 

Homes, No. 11-cv-3638-SC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26241, 2013 WL 707918, at *1 (N.D. 

Cal. Feb. 26, 2013) (plaintiff-insurer's "Construction Defect Review Guidelines" were not 

sealable because plaintiff failed to make proper showing). 

In addition to addressing the compelling reasons standard, Defendants' request to 

seal must also meet the particularity required under Local Rule 141 which requires the 

parties to specifically address "the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested 

duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the 

documents, and all other relevant information." Local Rule 141. Further, "[t]he 

documents for which sealing is requested shall be paginated consecutively so that they 

may be identified without reference to their content, and the total number of submitted 

pages shall be stated in the request." Id. 

IV. ORDER 

Plaintiff's request to seal is hereby DENIED without prejudice. Defendants are 

hereby ORDERED to file a notice and request to seal documents complying with the 

requirements of Local Rule 141 within fourteen (14) days of the issuance of this order. 

As Defendant is the party asserting that the documents are confidential, Plaintiff shall 

provide Defendant an opportunity to review the sealed exhibits supporting the motion for 

certification. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 6, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:12-cv-00304-AWI-MJS Document 87 Filed 02/06/14 Page 5 of 5