Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MASHID WADEEA, Individually and on Case No.: 24-cv-1587-JLS-DDL Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 11 ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL Plaintiff, 12 v. [Dkt. Nos. 236, 242] 13 MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, 14 15 Defendant.

17 Before the Court are motions to seal filed by Defendant Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC 18 (“MBUSA”) and Plaintiff Mashid Wadeea pertaining to documents submitted in 19 connection with discovery disputes in this action. Dkt. Nos. 236, 242. The Court held a 20 motion hearing on July 1, 2026. For the reasons discussed at the motion hearing and in 21 this Order, the motions are granted in part and denied in part. 22 LEGAL STANDARDS 23 The public enjoys “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 24 including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 25 597 (1978). This longstanding principle “is based on the need for federal courts, although 26 independent – indeed, particularly because they are independent – to have a measure of 27 accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.” Ctr. 28 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, when 1 evaluating a request to seal judicial records, courts apply “a strong presumption in favor of 2 access” to those records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 3 Cir. 2006).1 The party requesting sealing bears the burden of overcoming this strong 4 presumption. Id. 5 “Generally, the Court applies a good cause standard to motions to seal documents 6 related to a discovery motion.” Dunsmore v. San Diego Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 20-CV- 7 406-AJB-DDL, 2024 WL 628021, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2024). Although less 8 demanding than the “compelling reasons” standard, “good cause” nevertheless requires a 9 particularized showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if the information is 10 disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or 12 articulated reasoning,” do not satisfy the good cause standard. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l 13 Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause standard applies here because 14 the motions to seal at issue involve documents filed in connection with discovery motions. 15 ANALYSIS 16 A. MBUSA’s Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 236) 17 At the Court’s direction, MBUSA filed a brief describing its position with respect to 18 the discovery of documents pertaining to “road hazards.” Dkt. No. 235. The brief includes 19 the declaration of Ms. Coutu (“Coutu Decl.”) that, in turn, includes three categories of 20 exhibits that MBUSA moves to seal: (1) an excerpt of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript, 21 (2) repair orders reflecting tire repairs performed at third-party Mercedes-Benz dealerships 22 and (3) a document describing MBUSA’s Tire Program. 23 1. Deposition excerpts – Coutu Decl., Exh. A 24 As discussed at the July 1 motion hearing, the Court finds good cause to redact 25 information that would reveal Plaintiff’s address or location. The Court denies without 26 prejudice the motion to seal the deposition excerpts at issue (pages 153, 158, 168 and 170) 27 because they do not contain targeted redactions of such information. The parties must meet 28 and confer regarding appropriate redactions to the transcript pages. By not later than July 1 21, 2026, the parties shall file a joint motion to seal the specific portions of these deposition 2 excerpts that would reveal Plaintiff’s address or location. 3 2. Repair Orders – Coutu Decl., Exhs. M-T 4 Exhibits M, N, O, P, Q, R, S and T to the Coutu Declaration are repair orders 5 provided to MBUSA by third-party Mercedes-Benz dealerships describing tire repairs on 6 Mercedes-Benz vehicles. MBUSA moves to seal the repair orders on the grounds that they 7 contain sensitive and technical business information, reveal “non-public pricing strategies” 8 of the third-party dealerships and “disclose the proprietary information of the dealership[s] 9 regarding how they handle servicing and customer relationships.” Dkt. No. 236 at 5-6. 10 As discussed at the motion hearing, Mercedes-Benz dealerships generally provide 11 the repair orders to their customers with no restrictions on how the customers may 12 disseminate the repair orders. This weighs against a finding of good cause to seal the repair 13 orders. However, MBUSA points out that it obtained the repair orders directly from the 14 third-party dealerships and that its dealership agreements require MBUSA to maintain the 15 confidentiality of documents provided by the dealerships. Moreover, the documents reveal 16 the third-party dealerships’ “pricing strategies” and how the dealerships “handle servicing 17 and customer relationships,” the disclosure of which “could damage the dealerships’ 18 relationship with its customers and others.” Dkt. No. 236 at 6. The Court credits these 19 concerns and concludes that good cause exists to seal the repair orders provided to MBUSA 20 by the third-party dealerships. 21 3. Tire Program – Coutu Decl., Exh. U 22 MBUSA’s motion explains that Exhibit U to the Coutu Declaration consists of 23 proprietary information regarding MBUSA’s Tire Program, including the Program’s 24 “coverage portal, the specific standards for coverage of claims, and the competitive 25 strategy for offering the program to consumers.” Id. MBUSA further explains that the 26 public disclosure of this information would cause it competitive harm. Id. Based on this 27 showing, the Court finds good cause to seal the Tire Program documents. 28 / / / 1 B. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 242) 2 Plaintiff moves to seal exhibits to its excerpts from Plaintiff’s deposition transcript, 3 a repair order document produced by MBUSA that reveals Plaintiff’s location, a deposition 4 transcript excerpt and a repair order document designated by MBUSA as Confidential 5 under the Protective Order. 6 As discussed at the July 1 hearing, the Court denies without prejudice the motion to 7 seal the excerpts from Plaintiff’s deposition and the repair order document. The parties 8 must meet and confer regarding appropriate redactions to the deposition transcript excerpts 9 and the repair order document. By not later than July 21, 2026, the parties shall file a joint 10 motion to seal the specific portions of the deposition transcript excerpts and repair order 11 document that would reveal Plaintiff’s address or location. 12 As discussed at the July 1 hearing, MBUSA does not seek to seal the excerpts from 13 Jared Kantar’s deposition testimony or MBUSA_WADEEA_0008535-8538. 14 Accordingly, the motion to seal these documents is denied. 15 CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons explained above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 17 PART the motions to seal as follows: 18 1. MBUSA’s motion to seal (Dkt. No. 236) is GRANTED IN PART. By not 19 later than July 21, 2026, the parties shall file a joint motion to seal Coutu Declaration 20 Exhibit A that includes redactions to the specific portions of Plaintiff’s deposition 21 transcript that would reveal Plaintiff’s address or location. The Clerk of Court is 22 respectfully requested to seal Coutu Declaration Exhibits M-U (lodged at Dkt. No. 237) in 23 their entirety. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 2. Plaintiff's motion to seal (Dkt. No. 242) is GRANTED IN PART. By not 2 || later than July 21, 2026, the parties shall file a joint motion to seal the specific portions of 3 || Plaintiff's deposition transcript and the repair order document that would reveal Plaintiff’s 4 || address or location. Also by not later than July 21, 2026, Plaintiff must publicly file the 5 || Kantar deposition excerpts and MBUSA_WADEEA _0008535-8538. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: July 13, 2026 _— 8 Tb Lh, ° Hon.DavidD.Leshner 10 United States Magistrate Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28