Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed Plaintiff's motion to seal three exhibits submitted in support of a motion for class certification. The court granted the motion to seal Exhibits 1 and 3 to protect private individual data but denied the motion to seal Exhibit 16 because the request was overbroad and failed to identify specific confidential text.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Exhibits 1 and 3“WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to seal Exhibits 1 and 3.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard for sealing documents in connection with a nondispositive motion. The exhibits contained thousands of names, addresses, and phone numbers of private individuals unrelated to the litigation, which constitutes specific prejudice or harm to privacy if disclosed. |
Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Exhibit 16“The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to seal Exhibit 16.” | agree with court The court correctly found that the motion was overbroad. The plaintiff sought to seal an entire expert report without identifying or redacting the specific portions containing confidential information. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a party must show specific prejudice; sealing a document in its entirety when only portions are confidential is insufficient. |
Holding Defendant's Motion to Seal in Abeyance“The Court will hold Defendant’s motion to seal in abeyance until the fourteen days for Plaintiff to file a renewed motion to seal has elapsed.” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to manage the docket by waiting for the plaintiff's potential renewed motion regarding the underlying document (the Hansen Report) before ruling on the defendant's motion to seal quotes from that report. This is a reasonable procedural step to avoid redundant or premature rulings. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable standard (good cause for nondispositive motions) and applies it consistently. The distinction between the privacy interests in Exhibits 1 and 3 versus the overbreadth of the request for Exhibit 16 is well-reasoned and supported by the cited Ninth Circuit authority. The court also provided a clear path for the plaintiff to cure the deficiency in the motion regarding Exhibit 16.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIFFANY BRINKLEY, Case No.: 16-CV-1103-RSH-WVG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER PARTIALLY GRANTING 13 v. AND PARTIALLY DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SEAL 14 MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, 15 [ECF No. 188] Defendant. 16 17 On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion To Seal Documents In Support Of 18 Plaintiff’s Motion For Class Certification (“Motion”). ECF No. 188. The Motion seeks to 19 seal Exhibits 1, 3, and 16 to the Declaration of Patrick N. Keegan in support of Plaintiff’s 20 motion for class certification. 21 There is a presumptive right of public access to court records based upon the 22 common law and the First Amendment. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 23 597 (1978); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 24 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2002). A party must demonstrate “good cause” when it seeks to file 25 documents under seal in connection with a nondispositive motion. Pintos v. Pac. 26 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). “For good cause to exist, the party 27 seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if 28 no protective order is granted.” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210–11. 1 Good cause exists to seal Exhibits 1 and 3 to protect the privacy of the individuals 2 included in those documents. Exhibit 1 contains thousands of names, addresses, and 3 telephone numbers for private individuals who have no connection to this action. Exhibit 4 3 likewise contains telephone numbers for unrelated private persons, along with a 5 detailed log of private telephone calls from and to Plaintiff. 6 Plaintiff, however, has failed to demonstrate good cause to seal the entirety of 7 Exhibit 16, which contains Jeffrey A. Hansen’s expert report (“Hansen Report”). 8 Although Exhibit 16 may “describe[] in detail documents designated and marked 9 ‘Confidential’ and ‘Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only,’” ECF No. 188 at 2, 10 Plaintiff has made no effort to identify or redact the specific text in the report that reveals 11 the confidential information. Instead, the Motion seeks to seal the full report. That 12 request is overbroad, particularly where there are many paragraphs in the report that do 13 not cite or even mention any confidential documents. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate 14 “specific prejudice or harm,” Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210–11 (emphasis added), as to 15 Exhibit 16. If Plaintiff still seeks to submit any portion of Exhibit 16 under seal, she may 16 file an additional motion to seal within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, along 17 with a public (redacted) version of Exhibit 16, and re-file as a “sealed lodged proposed 18 document,” in accordance with Section 2(j) of the ECF Manual a non-public, unredacted 19 version that highlights the proposed redactions in yellow. 20 Finally, the Court notes that Defendant has filed a separate motion to seal its brief 21 in support of its motion to preclude portions of the Hansen Report. ECF No. 196. That 22 motion seeks to seal only those sections of Defendant’s brief that quote the Hansen 23 Report for the sole reason that Plaintiff has designated the Hansen Report as confidential 24 and moved to file it under seal. Id. at 2-3. The Court will hold Defendant’s motion to seal 25 in abeyance until the fourteen days for Plaintiff to file a renewed motion to seal has 26 elapsed. In the future, if any party seeks to seal a document solely because another party 27 has designated the document as confidential, the moving party shall meet and confer with 28 | designating party prior to filing the motion to seal to discuss what portions must be 2 redacted and whether a motion to seal is still necessary. 3 WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to seal Exhibits 1 and 3. 4 || The Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to seal Exhibit 16. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. Pehut ¢ Lowe 6 Dated: July 12, 2022 7 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28