Lovejoy v. Transdev Services, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHERISHA LOVEJOY, an individual, on Case No.: 23-cv-00380-AJB-MMP behalf of herself and all others similarly 12 situated, ORDER DENYING IN PART 13 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL 14 v. (Doc. No. 48) 15 TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Cherisha Lovejoy’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file 19 documents under seal. (Doc. No. 48.) Defendant Transdev Services, Inc., (“Defendant”) 20 does not oppose.1 For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES IN PART Plaintiff’s 21 motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant, alleging various 24 violations of California labor laws with regard to the latter’s treatment of Bus 25 26 27 1 Defendant failed to file a response to the instant motion. Contra CivLR 7.1.f.3.a (requiring either an opposition or notice of non-opposition to be filed in response to any motion not filed jointly). The Court 28 1 Driver/Operator employees like Plaintiff. (Doc. No. 1.) After Defendant filed an answer 2 (Doc. No. 4), the parties engaged in discovery regarding class certification. Early in the 3 discovery window, Magistrate Judge Barbara Lynn Major entered a stipulated protective 4 order at the request of the parties, which provided, inter alia, that any request to file a 5 document under seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of the confidential or 6 privileged material.” (Doc. No. 13 ¶ 12.) 7 On September 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification (Doc. No. 46), 8 a declaration in support of the motion (Doc. No. 50), and the instant motion to file under 9 seal the entirety of Exhibit 4 and Exhibits 8 through 11 attached to the aforementioned 10 declaration (Doc. Nos. 48 (motion to seal); 49 (lodged unredacted version); 50 (public 11 redacted version)). 12 II. LEGAL STANDARD2 13 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 14 records and documents, including judicial records and documents,’” which is “justified by 15 the interest of citizens in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’” 16 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 17 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 598 (1978)). “Unless a particular 18 court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is 19 the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 20 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to 21 seal a judicial record must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual 22 findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 23 disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178– 24 79 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In balancing the competing interests 25 26 2 As the instant motion relates to sealing a filing in support of Plaintiff’s motion for class 27 certification, the compelling reasons standard—rather than the good cause exception—applies. See, e.g., Adtrader, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 17-CV-07082-BLF, 2020 WL 6391210, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 28 1 of the public and the party who seeks to keep secret judicial records, the court must “base 2 its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without 3 relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. 4 “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the 5 trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 6 2016) (quoting Nixon,435 U.S. at 599). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to 7 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when 8 such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of 9 records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or 10 release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 11 Compelling reasons also may exist if sealing is required to prevent documents from being 12 used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” 13 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598; see e.g., Cohen v. Trump, No. 13-cv-2519-GPC-WVG, 2016 WL 14 3036302, at *5 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) (“Where parties have been able to point to 15 concrete factual information or expert testimony that the material sought to be sealed 16 contained confidential business material, such as marketing strategies, product 17 development plans, licensing agreements, and profit, cost, and margin data, courts have 18 been willing to find that information confidential.”) (collecting cases). 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 Plaintiff seeks permission to seal five exhibits attached to the declaration of Justin 21 Hewgill, Plaintiff’s counsel, in support of the motion for class certification. (See generally 22 Doc. No. 48.) The exhibits fall into three categories: (1) Plaintiff’s wage statement (Exhibit 23 11); (2) paddle samples describing drivers’ routes for a given workday (Exhibits 4, 8, and 24 9); and (3) an excerpt from Defendant’s Visual Dispatch System (“VDS”) User Manual 25 (Exhibit 10). (Id.) The Court will address each category in turn. 26 A. Plaintiff’s Wage Statement (Exhibit 11) 27 Plaintiff seeks certification against Defendant for, inter alia, failure to provide 28 accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor Code § 226. (Doc. No. 1 46-1 at 15, 17–18, 27–30.) In support of this claim, Plaintiff provides one of her wage 2 statements that includes personal identifying and financial information such as her address, 3 marital status, pay and tax withholdings. (See Doc. Nos. 48-1 at 5; 49 at 141 (lodged); 50 4 at 99 (redacted).) In the instant motion, Plaintiff argues the wage statement should be sealed 5 in its entirety because “[c]ourts have routinely found compelling reasons to seal personally 6 identifiable information, such as names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses.” 7 (Doc. No. 48-1 at 5.) 8 The Court agrees with Plaintiff that there are compelling reasons to seal some of the 9 information on Plaintiff’s wage statement, specifically Plaintiff’s salary information, 10 marital status and address; however, the wage statement is pertinent to the merits of 11 Plaintiff’s § 226 claim and Plaintiff fails to provide any reason let alone a compelling one 12 for why the document cannot be redacted. See Hyams v. CVS Health Corp., No. 18-CV- 13 06278-HSG, 2021 WL 1858296, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2021) (denying a motion to seal 14 pay records attached to a motion for class certification because “at least some of the 15 information in the pay records does not reflect [the plaintiff’s] salary information” and so 16 the request was not narrowly tailored nor were compelling reasons provided for “each fact 17 for which sealing [wa]s sought”) (emphasis in original); Ehret v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 14- 18 CV-00113-EMC, 2015 WL 12977024, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2015) (“The Court finds 19 that the majority of the document may be redacted—including the specific numbers, 20 names, and earnings by the individual drivers—as this concerns privacy interests. 21 However, the pertinent information at line 1 of every page, which labels the columns as 22 ‘net,’ ‘gross,’ ‘metered fare,’ ‘metered + 12% tip,’ and ‘minus 2% cc charge’ should not 23 be redacted, as this is relevant to the merits of the case.”). 24 Accordingly, the Court DENIES IN PART without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion 25 with regard to Exhibit 11. 26 B. Defendant’s Paddle Samples (Exhibits 4, 8, and 9) 27 With regard to Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant failed to pay wages, to provide rest 28 breaks, and to provide meal periods, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant “systematically fails 1 to record actual time worked and compensate its bus drivers/operators, including Lovejoy, 2 for all hours worked by . . . [inter alia] only paying estimates of time worked according to 3 aspirational bus route schedules called ‘paddles’ or ‘manifests[.]’” (Doc. No. 46-1 at 8.) 4 Further, Plaintiff asserts that “Class members widely report working unpaid time before 5 and after the preset ‘theoretical’ paddle time; having scheduled meal breaks on paddles be 6 deducted from time worked even though Class members are often forced to miss or be late 7 to their meal breaks; missing rest breaks altogether; not being paid meal and rest break 8 premiums; and not being paid split shift premiums.” (Id.) In support, Plaintiff provided 27 9 paddles in Exhibit 4, 1 paddle in Exhibit 8, and 12 paddles in Exhibit 9, all of which 10 Plaintiff seeks the Court to seal in their entirety. (Doc. No. 48-1 at 2–3, 5–6.) 11 In the instant motion, Plaintiff argues that the paddles were designated confidential 12 by Defendant, so Plaintiff is obligated to seek the Court to seal them. (Id. at 5.) More 13 specifically, however, Plaintiff argues that sealing is warranted because “compelling 14 reasons may exist where public disclosure of documents would harm a litigant’s 15 competitive standing.” (Id. at 5–6 (citing cases regarding employee bonus programs and 16 human resources policies and procedures).) 17 Neither Plaintiff nor Defendant provides any specific factual basis to support how 18 disclosure of these paddles could harm Defendant’s competitive standing, and the Court is 19 precluded from granting Plaintiff’s motion based only on its own conjecture. Because 20 Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden in demonstrating compelling reasons exist to seal 21 these exhibits, the Court DENIES without prejudice the instant motion with regard to 22 Exhibits 4, 8, and 9. 23 C. Excerpt of Defendant’s User Manual (Exhibit 10) 24 Finally, Plaintiff seeks to seal Exhibit 10, which consists of a single excerpted page 25 from Defendant’s VDS User Manual. (Doc. No. 48-1 at 3, 5–6.) As with the paddles, 26 Plaintiff asserts that compelling reasons exist because Defendant designated the document 27 confidential and disclosure of documents may harm Defendant’s competitive standing. (Id. 28 at 5–6.) 1 As with Exhibits 4, 8, and 9, neither party provides any specific factual basis, beyond 2 boilerplate statements of potential harm, to warrant sealing the excerpted page of 3 Defendant’s Manual. Moreover, in her motion for class certification, the only reference to 4 Exhibit 10 is filed publicly, which undermines the instant request to seal the entire 5 document. (See Doc. No. 46-1 at 9 (“Transdev’s VDS Handbook expressly states that the 6 VDS system’s ‘Check In/Check Out’ (‘CICO’) is NOT a time keeping system (Hewgill 7 Decl. ¶ 26 Ex. 10 at TSI.C.Lovejoy_0117007), putting the burden on the employee.”).) 8 Because Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden to demonstrate compelling reasons 9 exist to seal this exhibit, the Court DENIES without prejudice the instant motion with 10 regard to Exhibit 10. 11 IV. CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES IN PART without prejudice 13 Plaintiff’s motion to file documents under seal. (Doc. No. 48.) No later than 14 December 9, 2024, the parties may FILE a renewed motion to file under seal any 15 information for which compelling reasons exist. If neither party timely files a renewed 16 motion, then Plaintiff must REFILE the public version of Hewgill’s declaration 17 (Doc. No. 50), in compliance with the directives below, no later than December 13, 2024: 18 1. Publicly file Exhibits 4, 8–10, in their entirety, without redaction; and 19 2. Publicly file Exhibit 11 with redactions limited to Plaintiff’s address, 20 marital status, and the numeric values provided for rate of pay (all categories), 21 “this period” earnings, gross pay (both categories), net pay, “checking 1,” 22 and taxes. 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// l Any future motion to seal must comply with the stipulated Protective Order 2 || governing this case and the undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures. See J. Battaglia Civ. Case 3 || Proc. § IV.3. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: December 2, 2024 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28