Quackenbush v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 MARY QUACKENBUSH, MARISSA FEENEY, and ANNE PELLETTIERI, on 11 behalf of themselves and all others similarly No. Civ 20-05599 WHA situated, 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ 13 RESPONSE ON CLASS NOTICE v. AND OMNIBUS ORDER RE 14 MOTIONS TO SEAL AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR 15 COMPANY, INC., and HONDA MOTOR COMPANY, LTD., a Japanese Corporation, 16 Defendants. 17 18 The undersigned has read plaintiffs’ response regarding an updated class notice, and 19 defers to counsel’s representation that further notice is unnecessary (Dkt. No. 287). As such, 20 American Pipe notice will not be required. 21 As part of that foregoing response, plaintiffs’ counsel filed class notice and exclusion 22 lists. These are Exhibits B and C to the Schwartz Declaration, and plaintiffs seek to seal those 23 exhibits in their entirety, which contain the names and addresses of class members (Dkt. No. 24 286). Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal the class and exclusion lists is GRANTED. 25 In connection with a motion for summary judgment, defendants have moved to file under 26 seal certain exhibits and portions of both their own and plaintiffs’ opposition briefing (Dkt. 27 Nos. 207, 226, 229). Plaintiffs have moved to do the same (Dkt. No. 222). There is a strong 1 whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 2 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, access to motions and their attachments that are 3 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 4 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 5 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 6 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 7 8 DOCUMENT SOUGHT RULING PORTION TO BE SEALED TO BE SEALED 9 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Defendants re: Motion for Summary 10 Judgment (Dkt. No. 207). Defendants’ Motion DENIED. Honda seeks to seal the 11 for Summary estimated rates of a VTC rattle from Judgment (Dkt. No. each side’s expert. That is an issue 12 207-4). that goes to the heart of this action, so 13 there is a particularly strong public interest. Honda asserts that public 14 disclosure “would unfairly permit competitors to capitalize on 15 Defendants’ resources at no expense 16 or a fraction of the expense incurred by Defendants” (Mot. 3). That may be 17 true regarding the details and technical data underlying the warranty analysis, 18 but it does not apply to high-level summaries of conclusions drawn from 19 that analysis, particularly when those 20 conclusions are opposed by each other and dispositive on summary judgment. 21 Delgado Decl. Exh. 3 GRANTED. The redactions sought Highlighted portions. 22 (Dkt. No. 207-6). are portions of the failure rate analysis report that contain granular 23 calculations on projections and some customer research data, while that 24 data is summarized elsewhere in unredacted portions of the report. 25 Delgado Decl. Exh. 4 GRANTED. Redaction for personal Highlighted portion. 26 (Dkt. No. 207-8). address only. 27 Delgado Decl. Exh. 5 GRANTED. Redaction for personal Highlighted portions. (Dkt. No. 207-10). address only. 1 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Plaintiffs re: Opposition to Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 222). 2 Plaintiffs’ Opposition DENIED. Estimated failure rates were 3 to Summary Judgment essential to the merits decision. See (Dkt. No. 222-3). entry for Dkt. No. 207-4. Plaintiffs 4 also seek to seal excerpts of customer inquiry call logs on the basis that such 5 conversations “include personal identifying information” (Mot. 1). 6 These excerpts do not, and in fact the 7 logs themselves already contain such redactions. The call logs are specific 8 instances of representations by Honda regarding the VTC rattle issue, already 9 summarized and alleged throughout this litigation. Finally, Honda omits 10 this same redaction in their 11 corresponding motion to seal below. Greenstone Decl. DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This 12 Exh. C (Dkt. No. request seeks to seal all call logs 13 222-5). wholesale. Again, the excerpts already redact personal identifying 14 information, and in any event is overbroad. Within FOURTEEN DAYS 15 of the filing of this order, either party may submit a revised request with 16 targeted redactions of any 17 information that may be identifying of individual customers. 18 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Defendants re: Opposition to Summary 19 Judgment (Dkt. No. 226). 20 Plaintiffs’ Opposition DENIED. See entry for Dkt. No. 222-3. to Summary Judgment Honda does not seek to seal the call 21 (Dkt. No. 226-4). log excerpts (Gibson Decl. ¶ 7). Greenstone Decl. DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. See 22 Exh. C (Dkt. No. entry for Dkt. No. 222-5. Defendants 23 226-6). assert that the customer inquiry call logs are sensitive because they relate 24 to Defendants’ “proprietary customer retention system and warranty data 25 and analyses,” which if disclosed could cause competitive harm (Mot. 26 3). No explanation is given for how 27 call logs provide any such insight, nor how the call logs can contain FOURTEEN DAYs of the filing of this 1 . order, either party may submit a 2 revised request with targeted redactions of any information that 3 may be identifying of individual 4 customers. Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Defendants re: Summary Judgment 5 Reply (Dkt. No. 229). 6 Defendants’ Summary GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 10:26, 11:17 Judgment Reply (Dkt. PART. Defendants claim that 7 No. 229-3). “confidential sales figures for specific vehicles for specific time periods and 8 locations” can be harmful to competition (Mot. 3). This order 9 . agrees to the extent exact figures are 10 cited, but declines to extend that reasoning to non-exact figures and 11 generalized summary descriptions. The foregoing applies to warranty 12 repair costs as well. However, those B considerations are outweighed by = salience to this action and thus public 44 interest for estimated warranty rates. See entry for Dkt. No. 207-4. 15 5 The parties have also moved to seal various documents regarding two separate 16 postponements of trial, both as a result of unforeseen medical events (Dkt. Nos. 262, 265, 280). 17 The redactions sought are discussions of those medical conditions and their impact on the trial Z 18 schedule. They are of limited relevance to the merits of this action, and furthermore implicate 19 the privacy of individuals’ medical histories that do not warrant public scrutiny, so there is 20 good cause to seal. The motions to seal are GRANTED as described in the corresponding 21 proposed orders (Dkt. Nos. 262-4, 265-4, 280-1). 22 Revised materials shall be filed within TWENTY-ONE DAYs of this order. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: July 25, 2023. 25 27 WILLIAM ALSUP 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE