Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 TANSEER KAZI, et al., Case No. 18-cv-04810-JCS 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 PNC, BANK, N.A., Re: Dkt. Nos. 72, 76, 80 Defendant. 11 12 I. LEGAL STANDARD 13 In order to rebut the presumption of public access to judicial proceedings, a party must 14 show “compelling reasons” to maintain documents under seal if they are filed in connection with 15 motions “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 16 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). The present motion for class certification meets 17 that standard. Under this Court’s local rules, a request to seal also must be “narrowly tailored to 18 seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 19 II. MOTION TO SEAL PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 20 Plaintiffs Tanseer Kazi and Linda Scheid filed an administrative motion to seal portions of 21 their motion for class certification, as well as evidence submitted therewith, on the basis that 22 Defendant PNC Bank, N.A. (“PNC”) designated material contained in those documents as 23 confidential. See dkt. 72. PNC filed a responsive declaration by Jason Mackenzie pursuant to 24 Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) addressing some of those documents. Mackenzie Decl. (dkt. 75). 25 Mackenzie’s declaration does not address the redacted material in Plaintiffs’ memorandum 26 of points and authorities in support of their motion for class certification, or Exhibits 1-A, 1-B, and 27 1-E to that motion. The administrative motion is therefore DENIED as to those documents, and 1 The administrative motion is GRANTED as to Exhibit 1-D, PNC’s Mortgage Originations 2 Incentive Plan. PNC has shown compelling reasons to seal the particular technical details of its 3 compensation structure to avoid competitive disadvantage, and the Court is not persuaded that 4 redaction of the plan itself to protect those details would be practical. That document will remain 5 under seal. 6 The administrative motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Exhibits 1-F 7 (Mackenzie’s deposition transcript) and 1-H (Michael Smiles’s deposition transcript). Although 8 portions of those depositions—e.g., particular rates of sales commissions, and perhaps particular 9 confidential subject matter of PNC’s training programs—might be subject to sealing, the Court is 10 not persuaded that compelling confidentiality concerns cannot be addressed by redactions rather 11 than sealing those documents in their entirety. Much of those transcripts’ contents need not be 12 sealed, such as the deponents’ work histories, broad descriptions of training on, for example, 13 PNC’s culture and values, and the basic structure of PNC’s compensation of loan officers as a 14 combination of commission-based incentives, regular pay, and other factors. PNC may file its 15 own administrative motion to seal narrowly tailored portions of these transcripts no later than 16 January 29, 2020. Plaintiffs shall not file these documents in the public record pending further 17 order of the Court. 18 III. MOTION TO SEAL PNC’S OPPOSITION 19 Much like the transcripts discussed above, PNC overreaches in its administrative motion to 20 seal portions of its opposition brief and several attachments thereto. See dkt. 76. PNC has not 21 demonstrated compelling reasons to maintain the basic structure of its compensation—for 22 example, the fact that loan officers can receive incentive pay on a monthly basis—under seal, 23 much less facts that could largely be determine from public sources, such as the number of loan 24 officers that PNC has employed in California. 25 PNC’s administrative motion is GRANTED as to Exhibits 4 and 5 to Janet Groh’s 26 declaration, which are confidential settlement agreements, and as to Exhibits 1 through 7 of 27 Michael Smiles’s declaration, which are the plan documents setting forth the technical details of 1 PNC’s administrative motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to all other 2 || documents at issue in this administrative motion, which PNC either has improperly sought to seal 3 in their entirety or for which it has proposed overly broad redactions. PNC may file a renewed 4 administrative motion to seal narrowly tailored portions of those documents no later than January 5 29, 2020. PNC faces a heavy burden to justify redacting more than particular numerical figures 6 and monetary values from these documents. 7 || IV. MOTION TO SEAL PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY 8 As with their motion for class certification, Plaintiffs also filed an administrative motion to 9 seal portions of their reply brief and supporting documents based solely on PNC’s assertion of 10 || confidentiality. Dkt. 80. PNC did not file a responsive declaration as required by Civil Local 11 Rule 79-5(e)(1). This administrative motion is therefore DENIED, and plaintiffs are instructed to 12 file the documents at issue unredacted in the public record no earlier than January 27, 2020, and 5 13 no later than February 3, 2020. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). If PNC’s failure to file a responsive 14 declaration was inadvertent, and PNC files its own administrative motion to seal portions of these 3 15 documents before January 27, 2020, Plaintiffs shall not file these documents in the public record a 16 || until the Court rules on PNC’s motion. Any such motion from PNC must show good cause for 3 17 || PNC’s failure to file a timely responsive declaration. IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: January 22, 2020 20 6 ZZ c ao J PH C. SPERO 21 ief Magistrate Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28