JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, et al.
JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff moved to seal an exhibit to her class certification motion based solely on its confidential designation under a protective order. The court denied the motion, finding that the designation alone did not meet the compelling reasons standard required for sealing documents attached to class certification motions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to seal Exhibit I to the Grant Declaration is denied.“For the above reasons, Plaintiffs motion to seal is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the 'compelling reasons' standard applies to documents submitted in support of a class certification motion. It correctly applied the precedent that a mere 'CONFIDENTIAL' designation under a protective order is insufficient to overcome the strong presumption of public access to judicial records. The order notes that neither party provided specific reasons for sealing beyond the designation, and the defendant did not respond. Therefore, the denial follows logically from the cited law and the record presented. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard ('compelling reasons' for class certification exhibits) and applies established Ninth Circuit precedent to the specific facts (reliance solely on a protective order designation). The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities. It does not skip any necessary arguments given the limited scope of the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACQUELINE AHUMADA, individually Case No.: 24-cv-1175-RSH-DEB and on behalf of all others similarly 12 situated, ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL 13 Plaintiff, [ECF No. 67] 14 v. 15 GIORGIO ARMANI CORPORATION, et 16 al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Before the Court is plaintiff Jacqueline Ahumada’s motion to seal Exhibit I to the 21 Grant Declaration, submitted in support of her motion for class certification. ECF No. 22 67. Plaintiff seeks to seal Exhibit I in its entirety on the grounds that it was designated by 23 Defendant as “CONFIDENTIAL” during discovery pursuant to the terms of the Parties’ 24 protective order. Id. at 2; ECF No. 68 at ¶¶ 2, 5. 25 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 26 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 27 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 28 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 1 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations 2 omitted). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 3 independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of 4 accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” 5 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 6 United States v. Amodeo (Amodeo II), 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 7 “Two standards generally govern motions to seal documents like the one at issue 8 here”: a “compelling reasons” standard and a “good cause” standard. Pintos v. Pac. 9 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010). Because Exhibit I was submitted 10 in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, the compelling reasons 11 standard applies. See Cahill v. Non-Party Media Organizations Insider Inc., No. 24-165, 12 2025 WL 841196, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2025) (“The district court properly applied the 13 compelling reasons standard rather than the good cause standard when determining 14 whether to unseal the materials attached to the class certification motion.”); J.J. v. 15 Ashlynn Mktg. Grp., Inc., No. 3:24-CV-00311-GPC-MSB, 2026 WL 1075233, at *1 16 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2026) (“[A] “compelling reasons” standard applies to motions to seal 17 documents relating to class certification.”). 18 Here, neither Party has set forth a compelling reason to seal Exhibit I. Plaintiff 19 relies solely on Defendant’s designation of Exhibit I as “CONFIDENTIAL” pursuant to 20 the Parties’ protective order and otherwise takes no position on whether the exhibit 21 should be sealed. See ECF No. 68 ¶ 5. Defendant has not responded to the motion. And 22 the mere designation of a document as “CONFIDENTIAL” under a protective order in 23 discovery is not, by itself, sufficient to meet the compelling reason standard. See Foltz v. 24 State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[O]nce the 25 [sealed discovery] documents are made part of a dispositive motion [e.g., a summary 26 judgment motion ruled upon by the court] . . . they lose their status of being raw fruits of 27 discovery, and no longer enjoy protected status without some overriding interests in 28 favor of keeping the discovery documents under seal.”) (internal quotation marks 1 |;omitted); Sentynl Therapeutics, Inc. v. U.S. Specialty Ins. Co., No. 19CV1667-LAB- 2 || AHG, 2021 WL 794271, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2021) (“[T]he confidentiality 3 || designation comes from the parties—it doesn’t signify a court’s determination that there 4 compelling reasons to shield the documents from public view while nevertheless 5 || considering them in connection with a dispositive motion”). 6 For the above reasons, Plaintiffs motion to seal is DENIED. Plaintiff is 7 || ORDERED to file Exhibit I to the Grant Declaration (currently lodged at ECF No. 69) 8 the public docket within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: August 19, 2026 ‘ 11 Jekut ¢ Lowe Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28