Martinez v. Booking Holdings, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 DAVID E. MARTINEZ and TANYA Case No.: 3:20-cv-01289-JAH-MSB SALAS on behalf of themselves and all 10 others similarly situated, ORDER: 11 Plaintiffs, (1) GRANTING UNOPPOSED 12 v. MOTION TO SEAL A PREVIOUSLY 13 FILED DOCUMENT, [ECF No. 41]; AGODA COMPANY PTE. LTD, a 14 Singapore Private Limited Liability (2) GRANTING MOTION TO FILE Company; AGODA INTERNATIONAL 15 DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL, [ECF USA, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability No. 42]. 16 Company; BOOKING HOLDINGS, INC. a Delaware Corporation, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Presently before the Court is Defendants Agoda Company Pte. Ltd. and Agoda 20 International USA, LLC (“Agoda Defendants”) unopposed Motion to Seal a Previously 21 Filed Document, [ECF No. 41], and Motion to File Documents Under Seal, [ECF No. 42]. 22 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 23 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’ ” Kamakana v. City & 24 Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 25 Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). The strong presumption in favor of access 26 must be weighed against articulate and compelling reasons supported by specific factual 27 findings to justify sealing of judicial records that are “more than tangentially related to the 28 underlying cause of action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 1 (9th Cir. 2016). Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet a lower “good 2 cause” standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) because such records 3 “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” 4 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 (quotations omitted); see also Center for Auto Safety v. 5 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding that the right of public 6 access is not limited to dispositive motions, as nondispositive motions may be directly 7 related to the merits of a case). “If any confidential information can be easily redacted 8 while leaving meaningful information available to the public, the Court must order that 9 redacted version be filed rather than sealing entire documents.” Allegiant Travel 10 Co. v. Kinzer, No. 2:21-cv-01649-JAD-NJK, 2022 WL 2819734, *2 (D. Nev. July 19, 11 2022) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003)). 12 A. Motion to Seal a Previously Filed Document 13 Agoda Defendants seek an order sealing portions of Plaintiffs David Martinez and 14 Tanya Salas’ Notice of Ruling re: Partial Arbitration Award (“Notice”) and the entirety of 15 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 11 arguing the aforementioned documents are “subject to a 16 confidentiality covenant between the Parties.” (ECF No. at 41 at 2). The Motion is 17 unopposed. Despite Defendants’ arguments, a confidentiality covenant between the 18 Parties does not alone demonstrate good cause. Bloom Energy Corp. v. Badger, No. 21- 19 cv-02154-PJH, 2021 WL 4079208, *12 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 8, 2021) (“The fact that the parties 20 privately bargained to keep a proceeding confidential does not nullify the requirement that 21 a party proffer a qualifying reason to justify sealing that document when put at issue in a 22 public forum. If the court accepted petitioner's position that the mere existence of such a 23 ‘bargain’ . . . provides the necessary justification, then the parties in any litigation could 24 circumvent the right of public access through private agreement. That outcome is 25 untenable.”); but see Barkley v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., No. 6:14-cv-376-Orl-37DAB, 2015 26 27 1 Attached to Exhibit 1 is an Arbitration Order entitled “Procedural Order #2 Ruling 28 1 WL 5915817, *2 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 8, 2015) (“Courts tend to honor parties' decisions to enter 2 into confidential arbitration; thus, they keep those proceedings, including awards, 3 confidential, particularly because: (1) parties often enter into them to maintain 4 confidentiality; and (2) it promotes the voluntary execution of private arbitration 5 agreements–a sound public policy objective.”). However, because (1) Plaintiffs do not 6 oppose Defendants’ motion, and (2) the Agoda Defendants seek to seal nondispositive 7 information that is not immediately related to the merits of the case based on the current 8 procedural posture of the matter, the motion is GRANTED. 9 B. Motion to Seal 10 Agoda Defendants also seek an Order sealing portions of the Objection to Plaintiffs 11 Notice of Ruling re: Partial Arbitration Award and paragraphs 4-13 of the Declaration of 12 Teresa Michaud on the basis of a confidentiality covenant between the Parties. (ECF No. 13 42 at 2). Defendants represent that the information “discuss[es] the substance of the AAA 14 Proceeding.” (Id. at 3). However, a review of the Objection and the Michaud Declaration 15 reveals the information Agoda seeks to seal is largely innocuous. Nonetheless, for the 16 same reasons as stated above with respect to the Motion to Seal a Previously Filed 17 Document, the Court GRANTS the Agoda Defendants’ Motion to Seal. 18 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 19 1. Defendants’ Motion to Seal a Previously Filed Document is GRANTED. The 20 Court retroactively seals Plaintiffs’ Notice and Exhibit 1 thereto, filed at ECF 21 Nos. 40 & 40-1. Plaintiffs shall re-file a redacted public copy of the Notice 22 that obscures the sealed portions within seven days of the date of this Order. 23 Exhibit 1 to the Notice (ECF No. 40-1) shall be sealed in its entirety. The 24 previously filed version of the Notice (ECF No. 40) shall be maintained by 25 the Court under seal. 26 // 27 // 28 // 2. Defendants’ Motion to Seal, (ECF No. 42), is GRANTED. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || DATED: August 14, 2024 4 5 JC A. HOUSTON 6 ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28