Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04810/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-04810-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tanseer Kazi
Plaintiff
PNC, Bank, N.A.
Defendant
Linda Scheid
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

TANSEER KAZI, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PNC, BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-04810-JCS 

ORDER REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 72, 76, 80

I. LEGAL STANDARD

In order to rebut the presumption of public access to judicial proceedings, a party must 

show “compelling reasons” to maintain documents under seal if they are filed in connection with 

motions “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 

Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). The present motion for class certification meets 

that standard. Under this Court’s local rules, a request to seal also must be “narrowly tailored to 

seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

II. MOTION TO SEAL PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

Plaintiffs Tanseer Kazi and Linda Scheid filed an administrative motion to seal portions of 

their motion for class certification, as well as evidence submitted therewith, on the basis that 

Defendant PNC Bank, N.A. (“PNC”) designated material contained in those documents as 

confidential. See dkt. 72. PNC filed a responsive declaration by Jason Mackenzie pursuant to 

Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) addressing some of those documents. Mackenzie Decl. (dkt. 75).

Mackenzie’s declaration does not address the redacted material in Plaintiffs’ memorandum 

of points and authorities in support of their motion for class certification, or Exhibits 1-A, 1-B, and 

1-E to that motion. The administrative motion is therefore DENIED as to those documents, and 

Plaintiffs shall file them unredacted in the public record no later than January 27, 2020.

Case 3:18-cv-04810-JCS Document 86 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 3
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

The administrative motion is GRANTED as to Exhibit 1-D, PNC’s Mortgage Originations 

Incentive Plan. PNC has shown compelling reasons to seal the particular technical details of its 

compensation structure to avoid competitive disadvantage, and the Court is not persuaded that 

redaction of the plan itself to protect those details would be practical. That document will remain 

under seal.

The administrative motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Exhibits 1-F 

(Mackenzie’s deposition transcript) and 1-H (Michael Smiles’s deposition transcript). Although 

portions of those depositions—e.g., particular rates of sales commissions, and perhaps particular 

confidential subject matter of PNC’s training programs—might be subject to sealing, the Court is 

not persuaded that compelling confidentiality concerns cannot be addressed by redactions rather 

than sealing those documents in their entirety. Much of those transcripts’ contents need not be 

sealed, such as the deponents’ work histories, broad descriptions of training on, for example, 

PNC’s culture and values, and the basic structure of PNC’s compensation of loan officers as a 

combination of commission-based incentives, regular pay, and other factors. PNC may file its 

own administrative motion to seal narrowly tailored portions of these transcripts no later than 

January 29, 2020. Plaintiffs shall not file these documents in the public record pending further 

order of the Court.

III. MOTION TO SEAL PNC’S OPPOSITION

Much like the transcripts discussed above, PNC overreaches in its administrative motion to 

seal portions of its opposition brief and several attachments thereto. See dkt. 76. PNC has not 

demonstrated compelling reasons to maintain the basic structure of its compensation—for 

example, the fact that loan officers can receive incentive pay on a monthly basis—under seal, 

much less facts that could largely be determine from public sources, such as the number of loan 

officers that PNC has employed in California.

PNC’s administrative motion is GRANTED as to Exhibits 4 and 5 to Janet Groh’s 

declaration, which are confidential settlement agreements, and as to Exhibits 1 through 7 of 

Michael Smiles’s declaration, which are the plan documents setting forth the technical details of 

PNC’s incentive compensation plans. Those documents may remain under seal in their entirety.

Case 3:18-cv-04810-JCS Document 86 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

PNC’s administrative motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all other 

documents at issue in this administrative motion, which PNC either has improperly sought to seal 

in their entirety or for which it has proposed overly broad redactions. PNC may file a renewed 

administrative motion to seal narrowly tailored portions of those documents no later than January 

29, 2020. PNC faces a heavy burden to justify redacting more than particular numerical figures 

and monetary values from these documents.

IV. MOTION TO SEAL PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY

As with their motion for class certification, Plaintiffs also filed an administrative motion to 

seal portions of their reply brief and supporting documents based solely on PNC’s assertion of 

confidentiality. Dkt. 80. PNC did not file a responsive declaration as required by Civil Local 

Rule 79-5(e)(1). This administrative motion is therefore DENIED, and plaintiffs are instructed to 

file the documents at issue unredacted in the public record no earlier than January 27, 2020, and 

no later than February 3, 2020. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). If PNC’s failure to file a responsive 

declaration was inadvertent, and PNC files its own administrative motion to seal portions of these 

documents before January 27, 2020, Plaintiffs shall not file these documents in the public record 

until the Court rules on PNC’s motion. Any such motion from PNC must show good cause for 

PNC’s failure to file a timely responsive declaration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 22, 2020

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-04810-JCS Document 86 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 3