Day v. GEICO Casualty Company ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JESSICA DAY, Case No. 21-cv-02103-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 9 v. SEAL FILED IN CONNECTION WITH BRIEFING ON DEFENDANTS’ 10 GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., MOTION TO DECERTIFY CLASS 11 Defendants. Re: ECF Nos. 193, 202 12 13 Pending before the Court are two requests to seal information designated confidential by 14 Defendants GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, and GEICO General 15 Insurance Company’s (together, “GEICO” or “Defendants”). First, Plaintiff Jessica Day 16 (“Plaintiff”) has filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material 17 Should be Sealed regarding two exhibits to her opposition to GEICO’s motion to decertify the 18 class in this action; GEICO has since filed a statement in support of sealing. See ECF Nos. 193, 19 196. Second, GEICO has filed its own Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal in 20 connection with its reply brief in support of its motion to decertify the class. See ECF No. 202. 21 Plaintiff does not oppose either of GEICO’s sealing requests. Having reviewed the parties’ 22 submissions and applicable sealing law, the Court GRANTS both requests to seal. 23 I. LEGAL STANDARD 24 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 25 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 26 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 27 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 1 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 2 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto 3 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming 4 the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 5 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 6 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). District courts regularly apply the 7 “compelling reasons” standard to requests to seal materials attached to briefing on class 8 certification issues. See, e.g., Philips v. Ford Motor Co., No. 14-CV-02989, 2016 WL 7374214, at 9 *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2016) (collecting cases); McCurley v. Royal Seas Cruises, Inc., No. 17-cv- 10 00986, 2018 WL 3629945, at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2018) (“A class certification motion 11 ‘generally involves considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising 12 plaintiff's cause of action,’ which require a district court to engage in a ‘rigorous analysis’ that 13 ‘entail[s] some overlap with the merits of the plaintiff's underlying claims.’”) (quoting Wal-Mart 14 Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 351, 352 (2011)). 15 In addition, the Local Rules of this Court require that all requests to seal be “narrowly 16 tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). That is, the sealing motion 17 must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a 18 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 19 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 20 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1). 21 II. DISCUSSION 22 Plaintiff provisionally redacted portions of Exhibits 3 and 4 to her opposition to 23 Defendants’ motion to decertify the class, see ECF No. 193, and Defendants seek to maintain 24 those redactions and to redact certain lines of their reply brief in support of the decertification 25 motion, see ECF Nos. 196, 202. Exhibit 3 to Plaintiff’s opposition brief is a September 2022 26 report of Allan Schwartz; Defendants seek to maintain under seal a single figure in Paragraph 73 27 of the report on the ground that it reflects internal financial information that if disclosed would 1 opposition brief is an October 2023 declaration from Mr. Schwartz containing additional financial 2 information that Defendants seek to maintain under seal. See id. Defendants further seek to 3 maintain under seal about six lines in their reply brief that they assert would disclose—to their 4 competitive detriment—non-public, confidential financial and competitively sensitive information 5 about GEICO’s operations within the California. See ECF No. 202; see also Decl. of Ronald M. 6 Lepinskas ¶ 4, ECF No. 202-1. Plaintiff does not oppose the sealing requests. 7 The Court has previously granted GEICO’s request to maintain under seal the 8 competitively sensitive financial information in Mr. Schwartz’s September 2022 report and 9 October 2023 declaration. See Order 6, at Rows 8–9, ECF No. 204; see also Admin. Mot. Re 10 Sealing 3, ECF No. 189. The Court made its prior determination under the compelling reasons 11 standard, see Order 2, and sees no reason to deviate from that ruling. See, e.g., Exeltis USA Inc. v. 12 First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-4810, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020); In re 13 Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing 14 “business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy,” including confidential 15 contract terms); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 16 1162 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing 17 strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer 18 information, internal reports[.]’”) (citation omitted). The Court has also reviewed the six lines of 19 GEICO’s reply brief for which Defendants request sealing and finds that they likewise reflect 20 sensitive financial information for which there exist compelling reasons to seal. See id. Further, 21 the Court finds all of GEICO’s sealing requests to be narrowly tailored—indeed, GEICO’s current 22 sealing request with respect to the October 2023 declaration of Mr. Schwartz is further narrowed 23 than the prior sealing request of the document, which the Court also granted. See Order 6. 24 The Court’s rulings on the documents at issue are set forth in the table below. 25 26 27 1 Document Portions Portions GEICO Court’s Reasoning Provisionally Requests be Ruling 2 Sealed Maintained Under Seal BS 1 Ex. 3 to Portion of § 73. Portion of § 73. GRANTED. Contains confidential 4 Declaration of financial information, 5 Teresa M. disclosure of which Becvar in would give GEICO’s 6 Support of competitors an unfair Plaintiff's advantage. See also 7 Opposition to Defendants’ 8 Motion to 9 Decertify Class 10 ECF No. 194-4 2 Ex. 4 to All references to Statements about GRANTED. Contains confidential 11 Declaration of profit and loss Ward declaration financial information, Teresa M. figures (portions of (portions of §f] 20— disclosure of which Becvar in 20-22). 22). would give GEICO’s & 13 Support of competitors an unfair Plaintiff's advantage. 14 Opposition to Defendants’ 15 Motion to 16 Decertify Class ECF No. 194-5 Z 18 3 Reply Briefin (5:1-2; Entire document. GRANTED. (Contains confidential Support of 5:24-25; information regarding 19 Defendants’ 6:7-8. GEICO’s competitive 0 Motion to business intelligence Decertify Class and strategy, 1 disclosure of which ECF No. 201 would give GEICO’s 22 competitors an unfair advantage. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 2, 2024 27 Lewnfanen Beth Labson Freeman 28 United States District Judge