Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Youssif Kamal v. Eden Creamery, LLC (2023-12-21) — remanded — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved to file documents supporting their class certification motion under seal based on a stipulated protective order. The court denied the motion without prejudice, finding that the existence of a protective order alone is insufficient to justify sealing, and ordered the documents to be filed publicly if no renewed motion is made.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiffs' Motion to File Documents Conditionally Under Seal (ECF No. 80) is denied without prejudice.“The Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit precedent that a stipulated protective order does not, standing alone, justify sealing judicial records. The court identified the 'compelling reasons' standard as applicable because class certification is effectively dispositive. Since the plaintiffs relied solely on the protective order and the defendants did not provide further argument for compelling reasons, the denial is legally sound. |
Plaintiffs are ordered to file ECF No. 81 publicly within 21 days if no renewed motion is filed.“Should neither Party elect to file a renewed motion, Plaintiffs SHALL FILE PUBLICLY ECF No. 81 in its entirety within twenty-one (21) days of the electronic docketing of this Order.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural consequence of the denial of the sealing motion, ensuring the public record is maintained absent a valid showing of compelling reasons. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standards from Ninth Circuit precedent (Foltz, Chrysler) and applies them to the specific facts (class certification motion). It correctly notes that the plaintiffs' reliance on the protective order is insufficient without a showing of compelling reasons, especially given the dispositive nature of class certification. The reasoning is concise but legally accurate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 YOUSSIF KAMAL, GILLIAN NEELY, Case No.: 18-CV-1298 TWR (AGS) RICHARD LICHTEN, SUSAN COX, 12 NICK TOVAR, MICHELE KINMAN, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 ASHLEY PETEFISH, and TERRI PREJUDICE PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION BROWN, on their own behalf and on TO FILE DOCUMENTS 14 behalf of all others similarly situated, CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL 15 Plaintiffs, (ECF Nos. 80, 81) 16 v. 17 EDEN CREAMERY, LLC, dba HALO 18 TOP CREAMERY, and JUSTIN T. WOOLVERTON, 19 Defendants. 20 21 Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs Youssif Kamal, Gillian Neely, Richard 22 Lichten, Susan Cox, Nick Tovar, Michele Kinman, Ashley Petefish, and Terri Brown’s 23 Motion to File Documents Conditionally Under Seal (“Mot.,” ECF No. 80). Plaintiffs seek 24 to file under seal the following documents filed in support of their Motion for Class 25 Certification (ECF No. 82): portions of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities 26 in Support of Motion for Class Certification and Exhibit A to the Declaration of Andrew 27 J. Brown in Support of Motion for Class Certification (“Brown Class Certification Decl.”) 28 and Exhibits C, D, F, and G to the Brown Class Certification Declaration in their entirety. 1 (See Mot. at 2; ECF No. 80-1 (“Brown Sealing Decl.”) ¶ 3.) The basis for Plaintiffs’ 2 Motion is that “these documents purportedly contain references and citation to documents 3 designated by Defendants Eden Creamery, LLC and Justin T. Woolverton (“Defendants” 4 or “the Designating Parties”) as ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ and ‘CONFIDENTIAL – FOR 5 COUNSEL ONLY’” pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order entered February 19, 2020 6 (ECF No. 48). (See Mot. at 2.) 7 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 8 presumption of access. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th 9 Cir. 2003). The showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the 10 documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the 11 merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th 12 Cir. 2016). When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the 13 “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does 14 not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 15 When class certification is effectively dispositive, the compelling reasons standard 16 applies. See In re Seagate Tech. LLC, 326 F.R.D. 223, 246 (N.D. Cal. 2018). But “[t]he 17 existence of a stipulated protected order is not enough, standing alone, to justify sealing 18 under [even the more permissive] the ‘good cause’ standard.” Signal Hill Serv., Inc. v. 19 Macquarie Bank Ltd., No. CV1101539MMMJEMX, 2013 WL 12244287, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 20 May 14, 2013) (citing Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 21 1992); In re Ferrero Litig., No. 11-CV-205 H(CAB), 2011 WL 3360443, *2 (S.D. Cal. 22 Aug. 3, 2011)). 23 Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion pursuant to the Protective Order, (see Mot. at 2), 24 and Defendants, as the designating parties, have not offered further arguments to establish 25 that compelling reasons exist to file under seal the lodged proposed sealed documents. The 26 Court therefore DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs’ Motion. Either Party 27 MAY FILE a renewed motion to file under seal any documents for which “compelling 28 reasons” exist within fourteen (14) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. Should ] ||neither Party elect to file a renewed motion, Plaintiffs SHALL FILE PUBLICLY ECF 2 || No. 81 in its entirety within twenty-one (21) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: January 25, 2021 fm [59 bie Honorable Todd W. Robinson 7 United States District Court 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28