Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02376-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON CAMPBELL and

SARAH SOBEK, individually,

and on behalf of all other

similarly situated current

and former employees of 

PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP,,

NO. CIV. S-06-2376 LKK/GGH

Plaintiffs,

v.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS, LLP, O R D E R

a Limited Liability Partnership;,

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendant.

 /

Pending before the court are motions by defendant

PricewaterhouseCoopers (Doc. Nos. 291, 301, 345) seeking to seal

various documents relating to plaintiffs’ motion for summary

judgment as to breach of legal duty. As explained below, the court

tentatively concludes that sealing is unwarranted for many of these

documents.

I. STANDARD FOR A MOTION TO SEAL

The Ninth Circuit has recognized “a strong presumption in

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 426 Filed 03/30/09 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

2

favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The standard for

overriding this presumption and sealing documents differs according

to the type of motion supported by the documents. “Those who seek

to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive

motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling

reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu,

447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at

1136). For records attached to nondispositive motions, a motion

to seal may be granted on a showing of “good cause” under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(c). Id. (citing Fotlz, 331 F.3d at 1135).

In general, “compelling reasons” exist when documents might

be used to “gratify private spite, promote public scandal,

circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.”

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications,

435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). This standard is therefore higher than

the “good cause” standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (c). Id.

II. ANALYSIS

Defendants have moved to seal documents filed in connection

with the motion, opposition, and reply for plaintiffs’ Motion for

Summary Judgment on Breach of Legal Duty Under California Labor

Code Sections (“Plaintiffs’ MSJ”). This motion for summary

judgment addresses the hours worked by class members, rest and meal

breaks taken, itemized wage statements, and waiting time penalties.

On the record before it, the court cannot conclude that the

parties’ actions in connection with these issues generally

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 426 Filed 03/30/09 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

3

constitute sensitive trade secrets. Although the court has granted

defendant’s motions to seal documents relating to some aspects of

the type of work class members perform and the manner in which it

is performed, the general details of when class members take lunch

carry with them a lesser need for secrecy.

Accordingly, the court has attempted to identify which

specific portions of the subject documents pertain to information

that might constitute sealable information, balancing this against

the public’s interest in access to documents supporting dispositive

motions. The court recognizes that this determination is

imprecise. Therefore, the court provides the parties with ten days

to explain whether there are compelling reasons to seal more than

only the following portions of the relevant documents. Such

explanation should not repeat the explanation already provided.

The documents and portions thereof for which the court

tentatively concludes that sealing is appropriate are described

below.

A. Document 291, Motion to Seal Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment on Breach of Legal Duty

The court tentatively concludes that sealing is appropriate

for the following:

* Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support

of Plaintiffs’ MSJ, Doc. No. 272, at Page 18, lines 21-23;

page 19, lines 1-7;

* Plaintiffs’ Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of

Plaintiffs’ MSJ, Doc. No. 273, UF 17. In sealing this

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 426 Filed 03/30/09 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

4

undisputed fact, all information pertaining to UF 17 shall be

sealed, including information contained in both the

“Undisputed Material Facts” column and the “Supporting

Evidence” column;

* Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of William A. Kershaw in Support

of Plaintiffs’ MSJ (“Kershaw MSJ II Dec.”), Doc. No. 274

(copies of select pages from the deposition of PwC’s Rule

30(b)(6) witness, Kathleen Harada (“Harada Depo.”));

* Exhibit 4 to the Kershaw MSJ Dec. (copies of select pages

from the deposition of PwC’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness, Debbie

McBee (“McBee Depo.”));

* Exhibit 5 to the Kershaw MSJ Dec. (copies of select pages

from PwC’s “U.S. Supplement to the PwC Code of Conduct,”

dated in 2004);

* Exhibit 6 to the Kershaw MSJ Dec. (copies of select pages

from PwC’s “U.S. Supplement to the PwC Code of Conduct,”

dated in 2001);

* Exhibits 7 and 8 to the Kershaw MSJ Dec. (copies of select

pages documenting PwC’s timekeeping and expense reporting

policies and guidelines (“timekeeping policies”);

* Exhibits 9 and 10 to the Kershaw MSJ Dec. (copies of PwC’s

Workload Balance Reports);

* Exhibit 12 to the Kershaw MSJ Dec. (copies of select pages

from a Coopers & Lybrand Staff Handbook);

* Exhibit 13 to the Kershaw MSJ Dec. (copies of select pages

from the deposition of Ashlee Pierce at pages 69-70); and

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 426 Filed 03/30/09 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

5

* Exhibit 14 to the Kershaw MSJ Dec. (copies of select pages

from the deposition of Thomas Erginsoy at pages 10-11, 18).

B. Document 301, Motion to Seal Defendant’s Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Breach of Legal

Duty

The court tentatively concludes that sealing is appropriate

for the following:

* Defendant’s Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Summary Judgment on Breach of Legal Duty at page 2, lines 20-

28; page 3, lines 1-6;

* Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Statement of Undisputed

Material Facts In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment on

Breach of Legal Duty, UF 17. In sealing this undisputed

fact, all information pertaining to UF 17 shall be sealed,

including information contained in both the “Undisputed

Material Facts” column and the “Supporting Evidence” column;

* Defendant’s Statement of Additional Facts Precluding Motion

for Summary Judgment, AFs 22 to 28;

* Defendant’s Objections to Plaintiffs’ Evidence Submitted in

Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Breach

of Legal Duty at page 2, lines 13-16; page 18, lines 22-28;

pages 19 to 30; page 31, lines 1-18.

* The following Exhibits to the declaration of Norman C. Hile

in Support of PwC's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for

Summary Judgment on Breach of Legal Duty ("Hile Dec. II"),

all of which have been previously filed as evidence, and have

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 426 Filed 03/30/09 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

6

been subject to prior motions to seal: Exhibit 1 (Declaration

of Laura Anderson); Exhibit 2 (Declaration of Mark Bates),

Exhibit 3 (Declaration of Rodney Dowell), Exhibit 4

(Declaration of Thomas Erginsoy); Exhibit 5 (Declaration of

Erica Gellerman), Exhibit 7 (Declaration of Blair Krebs),

Exhibit 8 (Declaration of Annie Kurosaki), Exhibit 9

(Declaration of Michael McCarvel), Exhibit 10 (Declaration of

Jeffrey Mollenhauer), Exhibit 11 (Declaration of Jennifer

Nielsen), Exhibit 12 (Declaration of Ashlee Pierce), Exhibit

13 (Declaration of Travis Salha), Exhibit 14 (Declaration of

Nipun Soni), Exhibit 15 (Declaration of Benson Thomander),

and Exhibit 16 (Declaration of Timothy Vance); the following

additional exhibits attached to the Hile Dec. II,

constituting select pages of witness deposition testimony,

which witnesses' testimony has also previously been the

subject of motions to seal by PwC: Exhibit 17 (a copy of

select pages of the deposition of Plaintiff Jason Campbell),

Exhibit 18 (a copy of select pages of the deposition of

Thomas Erginsoy), Exhibit 19 (a copy of select pages of the

deposition of PwC 30(b)(6) witness Kathleen Harada), and

Exhibit 20 (a copy of select pages of the deposition of

Plaintiff Sarah Sobek); and Exhibit 6 (declaration of

Kathleen Harada in Support of PwC's Opposition to Plaintiffs'

Motion for Summary Judgment on Breach of Legal Duty ("Harada

Dec.).

////

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 426 Filed 03/30/09 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

7

C. Document 345, Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion for

Summary Judgment on Breach of Legal Duty

The court tentatively concludes that sealing is appropriate

for the following:

* Plaintiffs’ Reply to defendant’s opposition to Plaintiffs’

Motion for Summary Judgment on Breach of Legal Duty, at page

2, lines 19-24 (fn. 2); page 9, lines 14-16;

* Plaintiffs’ Objections to defendant’s response to statement

of undisputed material facts in support of motion for summary

judgment on breach of legal duty, at UF 17.

* Plaintiffs’ Response to defendant’s objections to evidence

submitted in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment on breach of legal duty, at page 1, lines 19-20;

page 6, lines 22-25, 27-28; page 7, lines 1-4, 17-13, 26-28

(fn. 3); page 10, lines 27-28; page 11, line 1;

* Plaintiffs’ Response to defendant’s statement of additional

material facts precluding summary judgment on breach of legal

duty, AFs 1, 2, and 22 to 28.

III. CONCLUSION

The parties MAY file explanations as to why the court should

deviate from the proposed partial grant and denial of the above

motions to seal (Doc. Nos. 291, 301, 345) within ten days from the

filing of this order. This ten day period is not subject to the

court’s separate order continuing various dates in the abovecaptioned action.

////

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 426 Filed 03/30/09 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

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 27, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-02376-TLN-AC Document 426 Filed 03/30/09 Page 8 of 8