Harper v. Charter Communications, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 LIONEL HARPER, DANIEL SINCLAIR, No. 2:19-cv-00902 WBS DMC HASSAN TURNER, LUIS VAZQUEZ, and 13 PEDRO ABASCAL, individually and on behalf of all others 14 similarly situated and all ORDER aggrieved employees, 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, 18 Defendant. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Plaintiffs request to seal certain exhibits to their 22 motion for partial summary judgment pursuant to the parties’ 23 stipulated protective order. (Docket No. 361.) These exhibits 24 are defendant Charter’s sales commission plan for account 25 executives and accompanying attachments.1 (Docket Nos. 360-10 to 26 27 1 While plaintiffs move to seal, the documents originated 28 1 -12.) 2 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 3 burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public 4 access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 5 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Where a party seeks to seal an attachment 6 related to a dispositive pleading, the party must “articulate 7 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 8 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 9 favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding 10 the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citations omitted). The 11 court then must balance the competing interests of the public and 12 the party seeking to keep records secret. Id. at 1179. 13 Charter seeks to have these exhibits sealed because (1) 14 Charter has designated them as Confidential; (2) Charter contends 15 that they contain confidential, personal, and proprietary 16 information; (3) Charter has maintained them as confidential 17 pursuant to their regular business practices; and (4) Charter 18 contends that there is no clear public interest in publicly 19 disclosing the information therein. (Docket No. 361 at 1.) 20 The court is unpersuaded. The parties point to nothing 21 in their entirely conclusory pleadings on this motion to suggest 22 that confidentiality would outweigh the public’s strong interest 23 in an open court process -- all the stronger when documents bear 24 on a dispositive pleading. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. 25 As this court has previously pointed out to these same litigants, 26 a confidentiality agreement between the parties does not per se 27 constitute a compelling reason to seal documents. (See Docket 28 No. 110.) See also Feb. 5, 2016 Order at 3, Wilson v. Conair nee enn nee nn ne nnn nnn nn EO I SII ED OE 1 Corp., Civ. No. 1:14-cv-00894; Oct. 8, 2014 Order at 2, Starbucks 2 Corp. v. Amcor Packaging Distrib., Civ. No. 2:13-1754; Sept. 3, 3 2015 Order at 3, Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain 4 Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Civ. No. 1:14-00953; Sept. 18, 5 2015 Order at 2, Rosales v. City of Chico, Civ. No. 2:14-02152. 6 The fact that the assigned magistrate judge signed the stipulated 7 protective order does not change this principle. 8 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs’ request to 9 seal (Docket No. 361) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without 10 prejudice to the parties submitting a more tailored request, such 11 as redacting specific portions of these exhibits, which states 12 with particularity the basis for redacting or sealing the 13 documents and why defendant’s harm absent such measures would 14 outweigh public policies favoring disclosure.? 15 Dated: February 9, 2024 16 oh blew. WV fh. beE— WILLIAM B. SHUBB 1" UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 Before so doing, the parties are directed to carefully review the grounds on which the court denied the previous request 28 || to seal. (See Docket No. 110.)