Stewart v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAMELA STEWART and ZULEKHA Case No.: 19-CV-2043 TWR (KSC) ABDUL, individually and on behalf of 12 similarly situated employees of ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 Defendants in the State of California PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. (ECF Nos. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 58) 16 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC. and DOES I 17 THROUGH 50, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Pamela Stewart’s unopposed Motion to File 21 Documents Under Seal in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (“Mot,” 22 ECF No. 58). Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s arguments, the proposed sealed 23 documents (ECF Nos. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53), and the 24 law, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Motion as follows. 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 1 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 2 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking 3 to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption. Foltz, 4 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the 5 documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the 6 merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th 7 Cir. 2016). Where the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of 8 the case, the stringent “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. Where the 9 underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the less exacting 10 “good cause” standard applies. Id. The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the 11 sound discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and 12 circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 13 As Plaintiff Stewart acknowledges, (see Mot. at 4), the “particularized showing of 14 good cause” standard applies where a party moves to seal a document attached to a non- 15 dispositive motion. See Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. Wolf, No. 17-CV-02366-BAS-KSC, 2020 16 WL 5422784, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2020) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180). This 17 requires the moving party to “make a particularized showing of good cause with respect to 18 each individual document.” SmartMetric, Inc. v. Mastercard Int’l, Inc., No. 19 CV117126MWFAJWX, 2013 WL 12114448, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2013) (citing San 20 Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999)). “The 21 ‘good cause’ standard cannot be satisfied with broad allegations of harm that are not 22 substantiated with specific examples or articulated reasoning.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. 23 “A showing of ‘good cause’ requires ‘specific demonstrations of fact, supported where 24 possible by affidavits and concrete examples, rather than broad, conclusory allegations of 25 potential harm.’” Id. at 1130–31. 26 In Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff asserts in conclusory fashion that all of the documents 27 she seeks to file under seal “concern Defendant’s corporate policies and practices or 28 sensitive putative class member contact or compensation information.” (See Mot. at 2). 1 || For each of the documents Plaintiff seeks to file under seal, Plaintiff only provides a brief 2 ||explanation of what the document is and a conclusory allegation of potential harm or 3 || prejudice. (See Mot. at 2; see also ECF No. 58-2 4 3). Thus, Plaintiff's request for an 4 || order sealing numerous documents is accompanied by nothing more than broad, conclusory 5 || allegations of harm or prejudice. Plaintiff has not presented, for each of the documents she 6 |/requests to file under seal, articulated reasoning or specific demonstrations of fact, 7 || supported by concrete examples of prejudice or harm that could result if these documents 8 filed in the public record. Because Plaintiff has failed to make a particularized showing 9 necessary to establish “good cause,” the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the 10 |} Motion to File Documents Under Seal. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 || Dated: December 16, 2020 —— 15 | 9) (2 (re 16 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 7 United States District Court 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28