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 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 13 Plaintiff, MOTION TO SEAL 14 v. (Doc. No. 73) 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.1 (Doc. No. 73.) Defendant Transdev Services, Inc., (“Defendant”) 20 does not oppose. (See Doc. No. 78.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 21 Plaintiff’s motion. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 On August 25, 2025, Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class certification (Doc. 24 No. 75), to which Plaintiff attached the Declaration of Justin Hewgill in support of the 25 motion (Doc. No. 75-2), filed the instant motion to seal portions of the Hewgill Declaration 26 27 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the motions suitable for determination on the 28 1 (Doc. No. 73), and lodged the unredacted version of the Hewgill Declaration (Doc. No. 2 74). Defendant timely filed a notice of non-opposition. (Doc. No. 78.) 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD2 4 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 5 records and documents, including judicial records and documents,’” which is “justified by 6 the interest of citizens in ‘keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies.’” 7 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 8 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 598 (1978)). “Unless a particular 9 court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is 10 the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 11 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to 12 seal a judicial record must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual 13 findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 14 disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178– 15 79 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In balancing the competing interests 16 of the public and the party who seeks to keep secret judicial records, the court must “base 17 its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without 18 relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. 19 “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the 20 trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 21 2016) (quoting Nixon,435 U.S. at 599). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to 22 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when 23 such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of 24 records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or 25 26 2 As the instant motion relates to sealing a filing in support of Plaintiff’s renewed 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 release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 2 Compelling reasons also may exist if sealing is required to prevent documents from being 3 used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” 4 Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598; see e.g., Cohen v. Trump, No. 13-cv-2519-GPC-WVG, 2016 WL 5 3036302, at *5 (S.D. Cal. May 27, 2016) (“Where parties have been able to point to 6 concrete factual information or expert testimony that the material sought to be sealed 7 contained confidential business material, such as marketing strategies, product 8 development plans, licensing agreements, and profit, cost, and margin data, courts have 9 been willing to find that information confidential.”) (collecting cases). 10 III. DISCUSSION 11 Plaintiff seeks permission to seal portions of Exhibit 1 to the Hewgill Declaration. 12 (See generally Doc. No. 73.) Specifically, Plaintiff requests the Court seal the names, salary 13 information, marital status and addresses of absent class members as displayed on the 14 thirty-four wage statements. (Id.) Initially, the wage statements were designated by 15 Defendant as “Confidential”; however, prior to filing the instant motion, Plaintiff received 16 Defendant’s consent to publicly file these wage statement with redactions consistent with 17 the Court’s prior sealing order. (Id. at 4 (citing Doc. No. 61 at 3–4).) Citing the narrowly 18 tailored nature of the instant request, Plaintiff argues “[c]ourts have routinely found 19 compelling reasons to seal personally identifiable information, such as names, addresses, 20 phone numbers, and email addresses.” (Id. at 4–5 (collecting cases).) 21 The protection of absent class member privacy is a compelling reason to seal their 22 names, salary information, marital status, and addresses. See, e.g., UnifySCC v. Cody, No. 23 22-CV-01019-BLF, 2023 WL 7170265, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2023) (“Other courts 24 have found compelling reasons to seal personally identifying information, such as names, 25 addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses.”) (collecting cases); Canchola v. Allstate 26 Ins. Co., No. 8:23-CV-00734-FWS-ADS, 2024 WL 5275024, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 27 2024) (“[C]ourts frequently seal personal contact information, such as email addresses and 28 phone numbers, especially for third parties.”) (collecting cases). Moreover, Plaintiff | ||proffers the wage statements to demonstrate that Defendant issues uniform wage 2 ||statements across all locations. (See Doc. No. 75 at 3-6.) The personally identifiable 3 |}information Plaintiff seeks to seal is not relevant to the motion, while the relevant 4 ||information—how Defendant identifies itself and the format of the wage statements—is 5 redacted. E.g., Weidenhamer v. Expedia, Inc., No. C14-1239RAJ, 2015 WL 7157282, 6 *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 13, 2015). 7 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion. 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to file 10 ||documents under seal. (Doc. No. 73.) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to seal the 11 |/information currently lodged at Document Number 74. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: September 15, 2025 © ¢ 14 Hon. Anthony J. attaglia 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28