Dignity Health v. Aramark Healthcare Support Services, LLC ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DIGNITY HEALTH, Case No. 18-cv-07433-JD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 28 10 ARAMARK HEALTHCARE SUPPORT SERVICES, LLC, 11 Defendant. 12 13 This order resolves plaintiff Dignity Health’s unopposed request to file a “Master Service 14 Agreement” (“MSA”) under seal. Dkt. Nos. 28, 31. The request is denied. 15 The Court evaluates a sealing request in light of whether it was made in connection with a 16 dispositive or non-dispositive motion. For dispositive motions, the historic “strong presumption 17 of access to judicial records” fully applies, and a party seeking sealing must establish “compelling 18 reasons” to overcome that presumption. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 19 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 20 (9th Cir. 2003)). This standard presents a “high threshold,” and “a ‘good cause’ showing will not, 21 without more, satisfy” it. Id. at 1180 (citations omitted). When ordering sealing in this context, 22 the district court must also “articulate the rationale underlying its decision to seal.” Apple Inc. v. 23 Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). 24 The non-dispositive motion context is different. In that context, “the usual presumption of 25 the public’s right of access is rebutted,” “the public has less of a need for access to court records,” 26 and “the public policies that support the right of access to dispositive motions, and related 27 materials, do not apply with equal force.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citations omitted). Such 1 the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Jd. at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 2 |} 331 F.3d at 1135, 1138). 3 Under either standard, generic references to a “general category of privilege, without any 4 || further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, do[] not satisfy the burden.” 5 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. Similarly, “an unsupported assertion of unfair advantage to 6 || competitors without explaining how a competitor would use the information to obtain an unfair 7 advantage is insufficient.” Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 14-CV-02098-JD, 2015 WL 8 13063803, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015) (internal quotation omitted). 9 In addition, all parties requesting sealing in this district must comply with Civil Local Rule 10 || 79-5, including that rule’s requirement that the sealing request must “establish[] that the 11 document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to 12 || protection under the law” (i.e., is “sealable”). Civil L.R. 79-5(b). The request must also “be 5 13 || narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Jd. 14 Whether the dispositive or non-dispositive motion standard is applied, sealing is not 3 15 appropriate. That is because Dignity Health offers only a generic reason for sealing, and makes no a 16 || effort to narrowly tailor the request to truly sensitive information. 3 17 Consequently, sealing of the MSA is denied. Dignity Health is directed to file an 18 || unredacted copy of the MSA in the public docket by January 2, 2020. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 Dated: December 23, 2019 21 22 73 JAMES/PONATO- United Ztates District Judge 24 25 26 27 28