Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02086/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-02086-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” 

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

_____________________________________/

This Order Relates To:

MDL Dkt. Nos. 6653, 6918

Napleton, No. 3:16-cv-2086-CRB 

_____________________________________/

MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

The Bosch defendants have moved to seal in full or in part certain documents that they 

attached to their motion for summary judgment. They also have moved to redact the portions of 

their summary judgment briefs that reveal the contents of the documents they seek to seal. The 

documents at issue were designated as confidential by Volkswagen or by the Volkswagen 

dealerships that are the named plaintiffs in Napleton. 

Because the documents at issue were attached to a motion for summary judgment, their 

contents may be sealed only if compelling reasons are offered. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135–36 (9th Cir. 2003). Even if compelling reasons are identified, the 

Court must still “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep 

[the] judicial records secret.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 

(9th Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).

With respect to the Volkswagen-designated documents, Volkswagen did not respond to the 

Bosch defendants’ motions to seal, and thus has not identified compelling reasons for its 

documents to be sealed. The Volkswagen-designated documents must therefore be publicly 

disclosed, and the documents’ contents may not be redacted in the summary judgement briefs.

With respect to the dealership-designated documents, the dealerships have requested that 

Case 3:16-cv-02086-CRB Document 199 Filed 11/25/19 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

only a subset of their documents remain under seal. The identified documents contain sales, 

profit, and vehicle-inventory numbers for the dealerships, and an accounting of the settlement and 

support payments that the dealerships received from Volkswagen after the emissions fraud was 

revealed. The dealerships maintain that “[d]isclosure of this information could benefit competitors 

in their dealings with consumers.” (E.g., MDL Dkt. No. 6661, Berman Decl. ¶ 8.)

Much of the information that the dealerships seek to seal has been used by the parties to 

calculate damages; and those calculations are central to the Bosch defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. If this information is sealed, the public’s ability to understand the 

proceedings will be compromised. This fact weighs against the sealing request. See Ctr. for Auto 

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096 (noting that the presumption of public access to judicial records is “based 

on the need for federal courts . . . to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have 

confidence in the administration of justice”) (citation omitted).

Also weighing against the sealing request, the dealerships have not explained how the 

information in question would benefit their competitors. The lack of an explanation means that if 

the Court were to grant the request, the factual basis for its ruling would be based “on hypothesis 

or conjecture,” which is not permitted. Id. at 1097. “Simply mentioning a general category of 

privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, does not 

satisfy the [compelling reasons standard].” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1184 (9th Cir. 2006).

 On balance, the public’s right of access outweighs the dealerships’ claim of competitive 

harm. The dealership-designated documents must therefore be publicly disclosed, and information 

from those documents may not be redacted in the summary judgement briefs. 

By Thursday, December 5, 2019, the Bosch defendants shall file unredacted versions of 

all exhibits to their motion for summary judgment, as well as versions of their summary judgment 

briefs (the motion and reply) that are free of redactions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 25, 2019 __________________________

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-02086-CRB Document 199 Filed 11/25/19 Page 2 of 2