Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00120/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00120-16/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Amazon
Defendant
Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.
Defendant
Amazon.com Inc.
Defendant
Juan C. Avalos
Plaintiff
Alberto Gianini
Plaintiff
Golden State FC LLC
Defendant
Brittany Hagman
Plaintiff
Romeo Palma
Plaintiff
Linda Quinteros
Plaintiff
Juan Trevino
Plaintiff
Christopher Ward
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN TREVINO, CHRISTOPHER 

WARD, LINDA QUINTEROS, ROMEO 

PALMA, BRITTANY HAGMAN, 

ALBERTO GIANNINI and JUAN C. 

AVALOS, on behalf of themselves and all 

others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

GOLDEN STATE FC LLC, a Delaware 

Limited Liability Company; 

AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware 

Corporation, AMAZON FULFILLMENT 

CENTERS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, 

and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, 

Defendants.

Lead Case No: 1:18-cv-00120-DAD-BAM

Member Case: 1:18-cv-00121-DAD-BAM

Member Case: 1:18-cv-00567-DAD-BAM

Member Case: 1:18-cv-01176-DAD-BAM

Member Case: 1:17-cv-01300-DAD-BAM

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

(Doc. No. 118)

Currently before the Court is Defendants Golden State FC LLC (now known as 

Amazon.com Services LLC), Amazon.com Inc., and Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.’s (now 

known as Amazon.com Services, LLC) (“Defendants”) request pursuant to Local Rule 141 to seal 

portions of their opposition to the motion for class certification and Exhibits X and Y to the 

Declaration of Katherine V.A. Smith. (Doc. No. 118.) Plaintiffs Juan Trevino, Romeo Palma, 

Juan C. Avalos, Brittany Hagman, Alberto Gianini, Christopher Ward, and Linda Quinteros 

(“Plaintiffs”) were served with a copy of the request and did not file an opposition. For the 

reasons that follow, Defendants’ request for filing under seal is granted in part and denied in part. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 129 Filed 02/04/20 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

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). “[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and 

the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1180. This “federal common law right of access” 

to court documents generally extends to “all information filed with the court,” and “creates a 

strong presumption in favor of access to judicial documents which can be overcome only by 

showing sufficiently important countervailing interests.” Phillips ex. Rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. 

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Two 

standards govern whether documents should be sealed: a “compelling reasons” standard, which 

applies to dispositive motions, and a “good cause” standard, which applies to non-dispositive 

discovery type motions. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 

605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). 

While the terms “dispositive” and “non-dispositive” motions are often used in this 

context, the Ninth Circuit has clarified that the “compelling reasons” standard applies whenever 

the motion at issue “is 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). In some instances, the proposed 

filing of documents under seal in connection with motions for preliminary injunction, for 

sanctions, or in limine—though such motions are not dispositive—may be governed by the 

“compelling reasons” test, predicated on the right of access and the need to “provide the public 

with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better perception of its fairness.” 

Id. at 1097–1101 (quoting Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 161 (3d 

Cir. 1993)). 

Under the “compelling reasons” standard:

[T]he court must conscientiously balance the competing interests 

of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 

records secret. After considering these interests, if the court 

decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on 

a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, 

without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 129 Filed 02/04/20 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

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks, omissions, and citations omitted). 

The party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of meeting the “compelling reasons” 

standard. Id. at 1178; Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 

2003). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist when 

such ‘court files might . . . 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). “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.

II. DISCUSSION

Here, because the motion for class certification is more than tangentially related to the 

merits of the underlying action, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard in evaluating 

Defendants’ request to seal. See Larson v. Harman-Management Corp., 2018 WL 623592, at *2

(E.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2018) (applying compelling reasons standard to request to seal documents 

filed in connection with motion for class certification); Racies v. Quincy Bioscience, LLC, 2017 

WL 6405612, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2017) (same). 

Defendants request permission to seal page 6 line 28 to page 7 line 1 of their opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and Exhibits X and Y to the Declaration of Katherine 

V.A. Smith filed in support thereof. Defendants contend that the information at issue should be 

sealed because it contains confidential policies that detail competitively sensitive human 

resources practices relating to employee development and discipline. (Doc. No. 118.) 

Defendants further represent that they take “concerted efforts to maintain the confidentiality of 

these documents.” (Id.) Defendants have provided a declaration from a representative explaining 

why they seek to maintain the confidentiality of specific information contained in the particular 

exhibits and portions of the opposition under seal, as well as the efforts made to maintain this 

information confidentially. 

The Court finds that Defendants have made a particularized showing with respect to 

sealing page 6 line 28 to page 7 line 1 of their opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion for class 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 129 Filed 02/04/20 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

certification and Exhibits X and Y to the Declaration of Katherine V.A. Smith. These documents 

include confidential information regarding Defendants’ policies and procedures and the 

disclosure of this information could case Defendants competitive harm. See In re High-Tech 

Employee Antiturst Litigation, 2013 WL 163779, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2013) (sealing portions 

of a motion for class certification that included the defendants’ compensation and recruiting 

strategies, policies, and procedures, because disclosure could cause competitive harm); see also 

Frost v. LG Electronics, Inc., 2017 WL 6044067, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2017) (finding 

compelling reasons to seal documents that contained “sensitive and proprietary information 

regarding [the defendants’] internal human resources policies and practices.”); Felix v. Davis

Moreno Const., Inc., 2008 WL 3009867, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2008) (“A Court may order 

the sealing of court records when they contain confidential or otherwise sensitive business 

information.”). The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored, and Defendants have 

adequately articulated compelling reasons for maintaining confidentiality of the information at 

issue given the potential harm that may result from public disclosure. 1

Defendants additionally request that “access to the sealed contents . . . be restricted to the 

Court and any Parties authorized pursuant to Section 7 of the Stipulated Protective Order at issue 

in this case.” (Doc. No. 118.) The parties’ stipulated protective order in this case identifies 

several individuals in addition to the Court and its personnel who may review information that 

has been designated as confidential. (See Doc. No. 89.) Local Rule 141(a) provides that access 

to documents filed under seal is restricted to the Court and authorized court personnel. 

Accordingly, Defendants’ request to allow any individuals identified in the parties’ stipulated 

protective order other than the Court and its authorized personnel to access the sealed documents 

will be denied.

Finally, Defendants request that the Court “authorize the sealing of any future filings 

 

1 Defendants filed redacted versions of the opposition to the motion for class certification and Declaration of 

Katherine V.A. Smith concurrently with their request to seal. (See Doc. No. 119.) Defendants are reminded that 

Local Rule 140 prohibits such redactions absent Court authorization. However, because request to seal will be 

granted, the Court authorizes the redactions nunc pro tunc. 

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 129 Filed 02/04/20 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

containing, excerpting, or citing to these documents.” (Doc. No. 118.) Local Rule 141(a) 

provides, “[t]o ensure that documents are properly sealed, specific requests to seal must be made 

even if an existing order, statute, or rule requires or permits the sealing of the document.” The 

Court must separately consider each request to file documents under seal and any opposition 

received in order to determine if the requesting party has met both the compelling reasons 

standard to file under seal as well as the procedural requirements of Local Rule 141. CasasMontejano v. Holder, 2011 WL 3320532, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. July 28, 2011). Accordingly, 

Defendants’ request that the Court authorize the sealing of any future filings referencing the 

documents at issue is overbroad and will be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, compelling reasons being shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendants’ Request to Seal is GRANTED;

2. As Defendants’ opposition to the motion for class certification (Doc. No. 119) and 

the Declaration of Katherine V.A. Smith in support thereof (Doc. No. 119-2) were filed as 

contiguous documents, these documents shall be filed and maintained under seal in their entirety. 

Counsel shall comply with Local Rule 141 regarding disposition of the document for sealing; 

3. Defendants’ request to allow individuals identified in the parties’ stipulated

protective order other than the Court and its authorized personnel to access the sealed documents 

is DENIED; and

4. Defendants’ request to authorize the sealing of any future filings containing, 

excerpting, or citing to the sealed documents is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00120-KES-BAM Document 129 Filed 02/04/20 Page 5 of 5