Cittadino v. BrandSafway Services, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 SULLIVAN CITTADINO, an No. 2:23-cv-00322 WBS JDP individual, 13 Plaintiff, 14 ORDER v. 15 BRANDSAFWAY SERVICES, LLC; 16 BRAND INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC.; BRANDSAFWAY INDUSTRIES, LLC; 17 SAFWAY GROUP HOLDING, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 ----oo0oo---- 21 Defendants request to file under seal three employment- 22 related agreements between the parties: (1) an Equity and Related 23 Arrangements agreement, (2) a Management Incentive Compensation 24 Plan, and (3) a Delegation of Authority agreement. (See Docket 25 No. 43.) 26 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 27 burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public 28 access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party must “articulate compelling 2 reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 3 general history of access and the public policies favoring 4 disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 5 judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted); see also 6 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098- 7 99 (9th Cir. 2016) (explaining that the compelling reasons 8 standard should apply to all motions which are correlated to the 9 underlying cause of action). In ruling on a motion to seal, the 10 court must balance the competing interests of the public and the 11 party seeking to keep records secret. Kamakana, 477 F.3d at 12 1179. 13 The Ninth Circuit has recognized that an example of a 14 compelling reason for sealing records includes “sources of 15 business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 16 standing.” Ctr. For Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon 17 v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 539, 598 (1978)). 18 Defendants’ request states only that “the Documents 19 contain commercially sensitive or private financial information 20 and highly confidential company procedures and BrandSafway would 21 be harmed if this information were generally known.” (Docket No. 22 43 at 2.) 23 This boilerplate statement alone does not outweigh the 24 history of access and public policies favoring disclosure to the 25 public. A party must still “articulate compelling reasons 26 supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 27 1178. “Simply mentioning a category of privilege, without any 28 further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, eee ene IE I ORI IID INO IERIE OSI OD 1 does not satisfy the burden.” Id. at 1184. 2 Defendants provide no further guidance as to what type 3 of sensitive information these documents contain that would merit 4 an order sealing the documents from public view. Therefore, the 5 court must deny defendants’ request to seal. The court will 6 | consider a more tailored request which identifies the specific 7 information to be redacted or sealed and articulates the bases 8 for redacting or sealing such information. 9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ request to 10 seal (Docket No. 43) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED WITHOUT 11 PREJUDICE. bette Hh. (hi. 12 Dated: October 8, 2024 WILLIAMB SHUBB.....—T 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28