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-01587-JLS-DDL Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER (1) GRANTING IN PART v. JOINT MOTION TO SEAL AND (2) 13 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, 14 TO REDACT PORTIONS OF JULY 1, 2026 TRANSCRIPT 15 Defendant.

16 [Dkt. Nos. 324, 327]

17 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Seal [Dkt. No. 324] and Plaintiff’s 18 Motion to Redact Portions of the July 1, 2026 Transcript of Proceedings [Dkt. No. 327]. 19 For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Seal is GRANTED IN PART, and the 20 Motion to Redact Portions of the Transcript is GRANTED. 21 I. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On February 13, 2026, the Court ordered the parties to submit briefing regarding the 24 production of documents related to road hazards. Dkt. No. 224. Both Plaintiff and 25 defendant MBUSA moved to seal portions of their briefing. Dkt. Nos. 236, 242. MBUSA 26 requested to seal, inter alia, excerpts of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript (Coutu Decl. 27 Exhibit A) because of its designation as Confidential pursuant to the protective order. Dkt. 28 1 No. 236. MBUSA also requested to seal repair order exhibits (Coutu Decl. Exhibits M– 2 T), arguing that they “reveal competitive pricing and proprietary business information from 3 the third party dealership which MBUSA has an obligation to protect under its Dealership 4 Agreement.” Id. at 3. Plaintiff requested to seal, inter alia, excerpts of Plaintiff’s 5 deposition transcript and a repair order document, arguing that sealing of both documents 6 was necessary to protect Plaintiff’s physical location from public disclosure. Id. at 2-3. 7 The Court discussed the motions to seal at the July 1, 2026 discovery conference. 8 The Court found that good cause exists to seal information that would reveal Plaintiff’s 9 address or location but questioned whether targeted redactions to location information 10 would be more appropriate. Counsel for Plaintiff agreed and stated that they “[were] 11 prepared to give [the Court] more targeted redactions.” Dkt. No. 320 at 25 (July 1, 2026 12 Transcript 25:8-9). Because Plaintiff’s location had been discussed on the record, counsel 13 for Plaintiff also requested to make redactions to the transcript of the discovery conference. 14 Thereafter, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part both 15 MBUSA and Plaintiff’s motions to seal. Dkt. No. 318. The Court denied without prejudice 16 the motions to seal excerpts of Plaintiff’s deposition transcript and the repair order 17 document because neither contained targeted redactions for Plaintiff’s location. Id. The 18 Court instructed the parties to “meet and confer regarding appropriate redactions” and to 19 “file a joint motion to seal the specific portions of the deposition transcript excerpts and 20 repair order document that would reveal Plaintiff’s address or location.” Id. at 4. 21 Additionally, the Court granted MBUSA’s motion to seal the repair order documents, 22 crediting MBUSA’s concerns regarding competitive harm and confidentiality. Id. at 3. 23 The Court also issued an order permitting the parties to redact a portion of the transcript of 24 the July 1, 2026 discovery conference and setting forth a procedure for proposing such 25 redactions. Dkt. No. 314. 26 On July 21, 2026, the parties filed a joint motion to seal. Dkt. No. 324. On August 27 4, 2026, the parties filed a motion to redact a portion of the July 1, 2026 transcript of 28 proceedings. Dkt. No. 327. 1 II. 2 LEGAL STANDARDS 3 The public enjoys “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 4 including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 5 589, 597 (1978). This longstanding principle “is based on the need for federal courts, 6 although independent – indeed, particularly because they are independent – to have a 7 measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of 8 justice.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016). 9 Thus, when evaluating a request to seal judicial records, courts apply “a strong presumption 10 in favor of access” to those records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 11 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party requesting sealing bears the burden of overcoming this 12 strong presumption. Id. 13 “Generally, the Court applies a good cause standard to motions to seal documents 14 related to a discovery motion.” Dunsmore v. San Diego Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 20-CV 15 406-AJB-DDL, 2024 WL 628021, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2024). Although less 16 demanding than the “compelling reasons” standard, “good cause” nevertheless requires a 17 particularized showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if the information is 18 disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 19 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or 20 articulated reasoning,” do not satisfy the good cause standard. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l 21 Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). The good cause standard applies here because 22 the motions to seal at issue involve documents filed in connection with discovery motions. 23 24 III. 25 ANALYSIS 26 A. Joint Motion to Seal [Dkt. No. 324] 27 1. Plaintiff’s Deposition Transcript 28 On July 8, 2026, Plaintiff filed a redacted version of the transcript of Plaintiff’s 1 deposition. Dkt. No. 310. Plaintiff argues that these redactions are appropriately tailored 2 to “information that would reveal Plaintiff’s address or location.” Dkt. No. 324 at 2-3. The 3 Court disagrees and finds that Plaintiff’s proposed redactions are overinclusive. Plaintiff 4 has failed to make targeted redactions. For example, Plaintiff seeks to redact pages 61 5 through 67 of the transcript in their entirety, but redactions of location-specific information 6 on these pages would suffice to protect Plaintiff’s location. Dkt. No. 325 at 15-21. Further, 7 some of Plaintiff’s proposed redactions have no discernible relevance to Plaintiff’s current 8 location. See, e.g., Id. at 34, 37, 74, 75. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion to seal 9 Plaintiff’s deposition transcript but will allow Plaintiff an opportunity to file a renewed 10 motion that seeks to redact only those portions of the deposition transcript that would reveal 11 Plaintiff’s locations. 12 2. Repair Order 13 MBUSA requests that the Court reconsider its order regarding Plaintiff’s motion to 14 seal the repair order document attached as Exhibit 4 to her road hazard briefing. Plaintiff 15 moved to file the repair order document under seal both because it was designated as 16 confidential by MBUSA and because it reveals Plaintiff’s address and location. Dkt. No. 17 242 at 3. MBUSA filed a joinder to Plaintiff’s motion to seal, arguing that public disclosure 18 of the repair order would reveal confidential information from the third party dealership, 19 resulting in competitive harm. Dkt. No. 248. The Court denied without prejudice the 20 motion to seal and instructed the parties to make targeted redactions to the portions of the 21 repair order document that would reveal Plaintiff’s address or location. Dkt. No. 318 at 4. 22 MBUSA now asks the Court to allow the Exhibit 4 repair order document to be filed fully 23 under seal, arguing that the Court’s basis for sealing the repair orders attached as Exhibits 24 M-T to the Coutu Declaration apply equally to this repair order. Dkt. No. 324. 25 In the prior order, the Court noted that “Mercedes-Benz dealerships generally 26 provide the repair orders to their customers with no restrictions on how the customers may 27 disseminate the repair orders,” which “weighs against a finding of good cause.” Dkt. No. 28 318 at 3. However, the Court was persuaded by MBUSA’s argument that “it obtained the | |}repair orders directly from the third-party dealerships and that is dealership agreements 2 || require MBUSA to maintain the confidentiality of documents provided by the dealerships.” 3 Here, Exhibit 4 indicates that it was produced by a Mercedes-Benz dealership. As 4 such, the Court agrees it should be filed under seal for the same reasons as the repair orders 5 |}in Exhibits M-T. 6 ||B. Plaintiff's Motion to Redact [Dkt. No. 327] 7 Plaintiff seeks to redact three words from the July 1, 2026 transcript of proceedings. 8 || Dkt. No. 327 at 2. Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff's request. Jd. The Court finds that 9 ||the proposed redactions are supported by good cause and narrowly tailored to protect 10 || Plaintiff's location from public disclosure. Plaintiff's motion to redact the July 1, 2026 11 |/transcript of proceedings is granted. The unredacted transcript shall remain under seal. 12 IV. 13 CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons set forth above, the joint motion to seal [Dkt. No. 324] is GRANTED 15 || IN PART, and Plaintiff's motion to redact the July 1, 2026 transcript of proceedings [Dkt. 16 || No. 327] is GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS as follows: 17 1. Within seven days of this order, Plaintiff must file a redacted public copy of the 18 transcript of the July 1, 2026 proceedings. 19 2. Within fourteen days of this order, the parties must file a joint motion to seal the 20 specific portions of Plaintiff's deposition transcript that reveal □□□□□□□□□□□ 21 location. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: September 18, 2026 _—_— 24 Tb Lh, 25 Hon. David D. Leshner 26 United States Magistrate Judge 27 28