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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MITZIE PEREZ, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00454-MMC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 

PORTIONS OF FIFTH AMENDED 

COMPLAINT; DIRECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFFS

Re: Dkt. No. 261

Before the Court is plaintiffs' Administrative Motion, filed July 1, 2019, "to Seal 

Portions of Plaintiffs' Fifth Amended Complaint."1 Defendant has filed a response and 

declaration in support thereof. Having read and considered the parties' respective written 

submissions, the Court rules as follows.

In the redacted version of their Fifth Amended Complaint ("5AC"), plaintiffs allege 

defendant has a policy of denying certain types of credit to aliens who "hold Deferred 

Action for Childhood Arrivals ('DACA') status" (see 5AC ¶ 2); plaintiffs allege defendant,

in furtherance of said policy, uses seven specified "decline codes" that "reflect a credit 

denial based on alienage and immigration status" (see 5AC ¶¶ 83, 85-86; see also 5AC

¶ 84). As the decline codes have been designated confidential by defendant, plaintiffs, 

as required by the Civil Local Rules of this district, have redacted said codes from the 

public version of the 5AC, see Civil L.R. 79-5(e), and, as they correctly note in the instant 

administrative motion, defendant, as the designating party, has the burden to establish 

 

1By order filed concurrently herewith, the Court has approved the parties' 

stipulation to allow plaintiffs to file a Fifth Amended Complaint.
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 codes are properly filed under seal, see Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

A party seeking to seal a "judicial record . . . must articulate compelling reasons 

supported by specific fact[s] . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the 

public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 

judicial process." See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-

79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations, alteration and citations omitted); see also, e.g., 

Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc., 2014 WL 4145520, at *2 (N.D. Cal. August 20, 2014) 

(considering whether movant established "sufficiently compelling reasons" to seal 

portions of complaint). A showing that consists of "conclusory statements about the 

content of the documents," e.g., "that they are confidential and that, in general, their 

production [to the public] would hinder [the designating party's] future operations," is 

insufficient to establish the requisite "compelling reasons." See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1182; see also Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1026-27 (9th Cir. 2014) (holding 

"conclusory statement that publication of the [judicial record] will injure the [designating 

party] in the industry and local community falls woefully short of the kind of showing 

which raises even an arguable issue as to whether it may be kept under seal") (internal 

quotation and citation omitted).

Here, the declaration filed by defendant in support of the instant motion does not 

itself address whether the specific denial codes are properly filed under seal. Rather, it 

asserts that this Court, as well as Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte, to whom 

discovery disputes in the case were referred, have granted prior requests to file "the 

same or similar documents under seal." (See deVyver Decl. ¶ 3.)2 Each of the 

referenced sealing orders, however, granted a request to file under seal documents that 

detail the processes and procedures by which defendant determines whether to provide 

 

2The declaration also asserts that plaintiffs have not complied with the procedures

in the parties' Joint Stipulated Protective Order as to challenging an opposing party's 

designations. (See id. ¶ 4.) Any such failure, however, is not dispositive of the issue 

before the Court, which is whether defendant has shown a compelling reason exists to 

file portions of a pleading under seal. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.
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

credit to applicants, or similar practices by defendant; none of the cited orders addresses

whether the denial codes, standing alone, would be properly filed under seal.

Defendant also relies on a declaration it previously submitted in support an earlierfiled administrative motion to seal, specifically, the declaration of Pauline Reid, filed April 

17, 2018. In said declaration, the declarant asserts that certain documents filed in 

connection with a then-pending motion to strike were sealable because they disclose 

defendant's "credit underwriting considerations and risk scoring," or "information relating 

to eligibility and information required from applicants," or "information relating to 

[defendant's] software and credit decision-making systems." (See Reid Decl. ¶ 5.) The 

declarant does not address whether, let alone identify any compelling reason why, denial 

codes, standing alone, are properly filed under seal.

Moreover, as plaintiffs point out, defendant previously has placed one of the denial 

codes in the public record. (See Doc. No. 247-1 at 15:18-22.)

In light of the above, the Court finds defendant has not shown compelling reasons 

exist to file the denial codes under seal and, accordingly, plaintiff's administrative motion 

is hereby DENIED.

Accordingly, plaintiffs are hereby DIRECTED to file their Fifth Amended Complaint 

in the public record and to do so no later than July 19, 2019. See Civil L.R. 79-5(f).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2019

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge