Altemus v. Amazon.com Services

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 22-cv-1275-DMS-BGS 11 JADIAN ALTEMUS, an individual, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER v. (1) GRANTING IN PART AND 13 DENYING IN PART AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a 14 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO Delaware limited liability company; SEAL ATTACHMENTS TO 15 DOES 1–25, MOTION FOR SUMMARY 16 Defendants. JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 43); AND 17 (2) DENYING MOTION TO SEAL 18 ATTACHMENT TO RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION 19 TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 20 FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF NO. 55) 21 22 Pending before the Court are Defendant’s motions to seal certain exhibits and 23 declarations attached to its motion for summary judgment and its opposition to Plaintiff’s 24 motion for partial summary judgment. (ECF No. 43; ECF No. 55.) For the reasons set 25 forth below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant’s motion to seal 26 attachments to its motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43); and denies Defendant’s 27 motion to seal attachments to its response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial 28 summary judgment (ECF No. 55). 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Courts have long recognized “a general right to inspect and copy public records and 3 documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 4 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). The Ninth Circuit has held there is “a strong presumption in 5 favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 6 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). “A party seeking to seal a judicial record . . . bears the burden of 7 overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Ctr. 8 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 9 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). A court 10 may seal records only when it finds “a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis 11 for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1096–97 (quoting 12 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179) (alteration in original). 13 The Ninth Circuit has carved out an exception to this rule “for sealed materials 14 attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of a case” to which “the less exacting 15 ‘good cause’ standard” applies. Id. at 1097 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135); see also Fed. 16 R. Civ. P. 26(c). This exception does not apply here. When a motion is “more than 17 tangentially related to the merits of the case,” the compelling reasons standard applies. Id. 18 at 1102. A motion for summary judgment is “more than tangentially related to the merits 19 of the case”—it goes to the heart of the case. Id. The Ninth Circuit therefore applies “the 20 ‘compelling reasons’ standard to documents attached to a motion for summary judgment.” 21 Id. at 1098 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135–36). 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendant’s motion to seal 24 attachments to its motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) with respect to Exhibit S 25 to the Ing Declaration and Exhibit C to the Jones Declaration because they contain private 26 health information. The Court otherwise denies the motion. And for reasons set forth 27 below, the Court denies Defendant’s motion to seal an attachment to its response in 28 opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 55). 1 A. Defendant’s First Motion (ECF No. 43) 2 1. Ing Declaration 3 Exhibit B. The Court denies Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibit B to the Ing 4 Declaration, Amazon’s Offer Letter to Plaintiff. Although courts generally find a 5 compelling reason to seal “non-party personnel records given the reputational and privacy 6 interests at stake,” ImprimisRx, LLC v. OSRX, Inc., No. 21-CV-1305-BAS, 2023 WL 7 7029210, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2023) (citing Amini v. Crestbrook Ins. Co., No. 2:21- 8 CV-1377-LK, 2023 WL 2913751, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 12, 2023)) (emphasis added), 9 Exhibit B is Plaintiff’s record and Plaintiff is a party. Defendant cites DiMercurio v. 10 Equilon Enters., LLC for the proposition that compelling reasons exist to justify sealing 11 when the filing pertains to “[a]n employee’s personnel records and employment 12 information.” No. 19-cv-4029-JSC, 2021 WL 3885973, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2021). 13 However, DiMercurio provides no support to Defendant’s argument here because 14 DiMercurio concerned attachments to a motion for class certification and the court applied 15 the less exacting “good cause” standard, not the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. 16 Exhibits C–N, R, T–AA. The Court denies Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibits C– 17 N, R, and T–AA. These exhibits consist of various electronic communications between 18 Amazon and Plaintiff between August 2021 and March 2022 concerning Plaintiff’s request 19 for accommodation. Because these communications contain no confidential information 20 that has not already been disclosed in the Parties’ public filings, Defendant has not 21 identified a compelling reason to justify sealing. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184 (finding 22 no compelling reason to seal filings when they contain information that is “already publicly 23 available”). 24 Exhibit O. The Court denies Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibit O, which consists 25 of excerpts of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony taken June 8, 2023. Defendant requests to 26 seal more than half of the 294-page deposition transcript but articulates no compelling 27 reason to justify the overly broad request. Such a broad request lacking a specific factual 28 basis to justify sealing fails to satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard and “is 1 insufficiently tailored.” ImprimisRx, 2023 WL 7029210, at *4. 2 Exhibits P–Q. The Court denies Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibits P–Q, which 3 consist of short excerpts of the depositions of Amazon employees Ann Jones and Kimberly 4 McCown, respectively. The excerpts contain no confidential information not already 5 disclosed in the Parties’ public filings. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. 6 Exhibit S. The Court grants Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibit S, a medical report 7 describing Plaintiff’s knee injury and contains private health information. Courts in this 8 District have held that the need to keep personal health information confidential outweighs 9 the presumption in favor of public access. See, e.g., Stafford v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 17- 10 CV-1340-AJB, 2019 WL 3818015, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2019). 11 2. Othon Declaration 12 The Court denies Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibit A to the Othon Declaration. 13 The Exhibit consists of an email Mr. Othon sent to Amazon human resources personnel 14 concerning Plaintiff’s request for accommodation. Because this communication contains 15 no confidential information not already disclosed in the Parties’ public filings, Defendant 16 has not identified a compelling reason to justify sealing. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. 17 3. Jones Declaration 18 Exhibits A–B. The Court denies Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibits A and B to the 19 Jones Declaration. The exhibits consist of electronic communications between Plaintiff 20 and Ms. Ann Jones, a former accommodations consultant for Amazon, concerning 21 Plaintiff’s request for accommodation. Because these communications contain no 22 confidential information not already disclosed in the Parties’ public filings, Defendant has 23 not identified a compelling reason to justify sealing. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. 24 Exhibit C. The Court grants Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibit C, an excerpt of a 25 medical report describing Plaintiff’s knee injury which contains private health information. 26 See Stafford, 2019 WL 3818015, at *1. 27 4. Walker, Nagy, Kerchinske, and Pitera Declarations 28 The Court denies Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibit B to the Walker, Nagy, 1 Kerchinske, and Pitera Declarations, and Exhibit C to the Walker, Nagy, Kerchinske 2 Declarations. Exhibit B (to all of the above declarations) consists of records of applications 3 Plaintiff submitted internally within Amazon for other open positions. Exhibit C (to the 4 Walker, Nagy, and Kerchinske Declarations) is a copy of Plaintiff’s resume which Plaintiff 5 attached to those internal applications. Defendant articulates no specific compelling reason 6 to justify sealing these exhibits other than its general argument that they reference 7 Plaintiff’s personnel records. As explained above, although courts consistently find a 8 compelling reason to seal “non-party personnel records,” ImprimisRx, 2023 WL 7029210, 9 at *7, the exhibits here are Plaintiff’s personnel records, and Plaintiff is a party here. 10 B. Defendant’s Second Motion (ECF No. 55) 11 The Court denies Defendant’s motion to seal Exhibit A to the Ing Declaration 12 attached to Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. 13 Exhibit A consists of short excerpts of the deposition of Amazon employee Diane Tirschel, 14 Plaintiff’s initial manager when Plaintiff commenced employment at Amazon. The 15 excerpts contain no confidential information not already disclosed in the Parties’ public 16 filings. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. 17 III. CONCLUSION 18 For the reasons explained above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN 19 PART Defendant’s motion to seal attachments to its motion for summary judgment (ECF 20 No. 43); and DENIES Defendant’s motion to seal an attachment to its response in 21 opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 55). Specifically, 22 the Court grants the motion to seal Exhibit C to the Jones Declaration and Exhibit S to the 23 Ing Declaration. The Court accepts these attachments (ECF Nos. 44-18, 44-30) as filed. 24 The Court denies the motions to seal all other attachments. 25 If Defendant wishes to file a renewed motion to seal for the denied requests, or a 26 more tailored motion to seal portions of the remaining lodged sealed attachments along 27 with partially redacted versions on the public docket, Defendant may do so no later than 28 March 15, 2024. The Court otherwise instructs Defendant to file the remaining lodged 1 || sealed attachments on the public docket no later than March 15, 2024. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || Dated: March 12, 2024 am Dh 4 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge 5 United States District Court 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28