DOE v. Apple Inc. Health and Welfare Benefit Plan, No. 5:2022cv02566 - Document 27 (N.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 16 , 21 , and 23 Administrative Motions to File Under Seal. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 2/15/2023. (mdllc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2023)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
DOE v. Apple Inc. Health and Welfare Benefit Plan Doc. 27 Case 5:22-cv-02566-EJD Document 27 Filed 02/15/23 Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 JANE DOE, 8 Plaintiff, 9 v. 10 APPLE INC. HEALTH AND WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN, 11 United States District Court Northern District of California Case No. 22-cv-02566-EJD 12 Defendant. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S AND DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL Re: ECF Nos. 16, 21, 23 13 In connection with Defendant Apple Inc. Health and Welfare Benefit Plan’s (“Defendant”) 14 15 motion to dismiss Plaintiff Jane Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) complaint, both Plaintiff and Defendant seek 16 to file portions of their briefs and supporting papers under seal. ECF Nos. 16 (“Mot. Seal MTD”), 17 21 (“Mot. Seal Opp.”), 23 (“Mot. Seal Reply”). For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS IN 18 PART and DENIES IN PART the parties’ motions to seal. 19 I. 20 LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 21 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 22 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 23 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong 24 presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (internal 25 quotation marks omitted); see also Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 26 (9th Cir. 2003) (in considering whether documents should be sealed, courts “start with a strong 27 presumption in favor of access to court records.”). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating 28 Case No.: 22-cv-02566-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFT.’S ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 5:22-cv-02566-EJD Document 27 Filed 02/15/23 Page 2 of 7 1 to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto 2 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming 3 the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 4 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 5 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, the Local Rules of this Court 6 require that all requests to file under seal be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable 7 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). In determining whether there are compelling reasons to seal, “courts should consider all United States District Court Northern District of California 8 9 relevant factors, including: ‘the public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether 10 disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous 11 purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 (quoting Hagestad v. 12 Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). Courts must “‘conscientiously balance[] the 13 competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” 14 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). After considering these interests, 15 if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must “base its decision on a compelling 16 reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” 17 Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434 (citing Valley Broad. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Nevada, 798 18 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir. 1986)). Compelling reasons may exist to seal “trade secrets, marketing 19 strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer 20 information, internal reports and other such materials that could harm a party’s competitive 21 standing . . . [but] courts should exercise caution not [to] allow these exceptions [to] swallow the 22 strong presumption in favor of disclosure.” In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., No. 5:18- 23 MD-02827-EJD, 2019 WL 1767158, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2019). 24 II. 25 DISCUSSION The parties ask to seal material that is more than tangentially related to the underlying 26 cause of action—they seek to seal a significant portion of the amended complaint and dispositive 27 motion briefing. Accordingly, the parties must provide compelling reasons, based on specific 28 Case No.: 22-cv-02566-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFT.’S ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL 2 Case 5:22-cv-02566-EJD Document 27 Filed 02/15/23 Page 3 of 7 1 facts, to maintain this information under seal. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. The Court 2 addresses first Defendant’s motions to seal (ECF Nos. 16, 23) before turning to Plaintiff’s motion 3 to seal (ECF No. 21). A. 5 The Court finds there are compelling reasons to seal some, but not all, of the information 6 7 United States District Court Northern District of California Defendant’s Motions to Seal 4 sought to be sealed. Defendant seeks to seal the parties’ Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release dated 8 December 21, 2021 (“Settlement Agreement”), attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of 9 Michael Bernstein in support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Mot. Seal 10 MTD 1. “Numerous courts in this district have recognized the importance of protecting 11 confidential settlement communications and materials ‘in order to promote settlement’ and have 12 concluded that this general policy satisfies the more . . . ‘compelling reasons’ standard 13 to seal judicial records.” Milliner v. Mutual Secs., Inc., No. 15-cv-03354-DMR, 2021 WL 14 2645794, at *5 (collecting cases). Given the sensitive personal and medical history underlying 15 this matter, Plaintiff’s status as a minor at the time of the events, and Plaintiff’s choice to file suit 16 as a Jane Doe plaintiff, the Court also finds the protection of Plaintiff’s identity to be an additional 17 compelling reason to seal the Settlement Agreement. See Meyers v. Kaiser Foundation Health 18 Plan Inc., No. 17-CV-04946-LHK, 2019 WL 120657, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2019) (finding 19 compelling reasons to seal minor’s personal and medical information “because of the strong 20 interest in ‘preserv[ing] privacy in a matter of sensitive and highly personal nature’”) (citing Jane 21 Roes 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt LLC, 77 F. Supp. 3d 990, 993 (N.D. Cal. 2015)). Any interest the public 22 may have in the Settlement Agreement does not outweigh these reasons for sealing. See Milliner, 23 2021 WL 2645794, at *6 (determining public interest did not outweigh sealing interest without 24 indication of “public’s interest in a settlement agreement between private parties”) (citing 25 Facebook, Inc. v. ConnectU, Inc., No. C 07-01389 JW, 2008 WL 11357787, at *3–4 (N.D. Cal. 26 July 2, 2008) (finding that “the terms of the [parties’] settlement and the negotiations preceding it” 27 are “records . . . of the kind ‘traditionally kept secret’” and not subject to disclosure)). The Court 28 Case No.: 22-cv-02566-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFT.’S ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL 3 Case 5:22-cv-02566-EJD Document 27 Filed 02/15/23 Page 4 of 7 1 United States District Court Northern District of California 2 therefore GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal the Settlement Agreement. Defendant’s remaining requests to seal relate to excerpts of its opening brief, supporting 3 declaration, and reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss that reference the Settlement 4 Agreement or the negotiations leading up to it. Mot. Seal MTD 1; Mot. Seal Reply 1. For the 5 same compelling reasons described above, the Court finds it appropriate to seal those portions of 6 Defendant’s papers that quote from the Settlement Agreement or refer to the contents of either the 7 Settlement Agreement or negotiation communications so directly that the reference in essence 8 unseals the Settlement Agreement. See Arebalo v. Apple Inc., No. 19-cv-03034, 2022 WL 9 580865, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2022) (rejecting party’s efforts to “seal broad swaths of text” 10 and sealing “only the proposed settlement terms and actual negotiations concerning those terms”) 11 (citing In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Pracs., & Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 2672 CRB 12 (JSC), 2020 WL 2425792, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 12, 2020)). Defendant’s proposed redactions to 13 the Declaration of Michael Bernstein in support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 14 Complaint, see Mot. Seal MTD 1, and the Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 15 Complaint, see Mot. Seal Reply 1, are narrowly tailored—as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5— 16 to seal only language directly referencing the terms of the Settlement Agreement or describing the 17 negotiations prior to the execution of the Settlement Agreement. 18 However, the Court finds that the specific redactions proposed by Defendant are not 19 narrowly tailored and that Defendant does not provide a sufficient particularized justification for 20 sealing all the portions requested. For example, Defendant seeks to seal information that it has 21 revealed in publicly filed documents. Compare, e.g., ECF No. 17 (“MTD”) i:7–8, i:22–23, i:24– 22 25 (revealing phrase “in the Utah Case” in publicly filed motion to dismiss) and id. at 3:11 23 (arguing “Plaintiff’s release in the Settlement” bars all claims in this action), with ECF No. 16-3 24 i:9–10 (seeking to seal “in the Utah Case”) and id. at 3:4 (seeking to seal reference to Plaintiff 25 “releas[ing] all claims”). Additionally, the proposed redactions to Section V(A) of the 26 Defendant’s opening brief in support of its motion to dismiss would seal the entirety of the section 27 except for the legal standard. See MTD 13–16. An effort to seal “broad swaths of text” already 28 Case No.: 22-cv-02566-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFT.’S ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL 4 United States District Court Northern District of California Case 5:22-cv-02566-EJD Document 27 Filed 02/15/23 Page 5 of 7 1 suggests a lack of narrow tailoring, see Arebalo, 2022 WL 580865, at *3, and the Court observes 2 that the proposed redactions include phrases that are left public in the discussion of the legal 3 standard. Compare MTD 13 (“the Court should review the plain language of the Settlement”), 4 with ECF No. 16-3 15:12 (seeking to seal nearly identical language). Accordingly, the Court 5 GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motions to seal as described below. Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal 6 B. 7 Plaintiff moves to seal excerpts of her opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and the 8 supporting declaration. Mot. Seal Opp. 1. However, Plaintiff’s motion, while attaching an 9 unredacted version of the relevant documents, does not “highlight the portions for which sealing is 10 sought.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(2). Additionally, the proposed order should list in table format the 11 portions of the document that are sought to be sealed. Id. 79-5(c)(3). The Court therefore 12 DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion to seal. 13 III. 14 15 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s motions to seal and DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to seal as follows: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Document Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 17) Portions Sought to be Sealed Pages i:7–10, i:22–25, 3:4–10, 3:12–14, 3:20–21, 3:23, 4:1, 4:6–9, 7:8–20, 8:1–9:7, 11:4, 11:25, 13:13–17, 14:9–16:12, 16:26–17:1, 17:11–12, 17:18– 19, 17:23–24, 18:12, 18:19– 21, 18:27, 19:1, 19:3, 19:17, 20:3, 20:5–11, 20:13. Ruling Denied as to pages: i:10 (last four sealed words); 3:4 (first four sealed words); 3:6 (words 6–9); 3:7 (words 4–7); 3:8 (last six words); 3:9 (words 1, 3–12); 7:8 (first sealed word and footnote marker); 7:10 (last nine words); 7:11 (first five words); 7:13 (first nine words following end of citation); 7:18 (last five words); 8:11 (first nine words following end of citation); 14:9 (first 11 words); 14:10 (last six words); Case No.: 22-cv-02566-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFT.’S ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL 5 Case 5:22-cv-02566-EJD Document 27 Filed 02/15/23 Page 6 of 7 14:11 (first six words); 14:15 (last two words); 14:16 (first two words, first eight words following end of citation); 14:17 (words 12–17); 14:18 (last three words); 14:19 (first word); 14:20 (words 7–16); 14:23 (last word); 14:24 (first two words); 15:1 (words 2–9); 15:10 (first four words following end of citation); 15:12–14 (sentence beginning after end of citation through first 12 words of 15:14); 15:15 (last four words); 15:16 (entire line); 15:17 (first word); 15:26 (last four words); 15:27 (first 16 words); 20:5 (last two words); 20:6 (first word, last nine words); 20:7 (first four words). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Declaration of Michael Bernstein in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17-1) Confidential Settlement Agreement and Release, dated December 21, 2021, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Michael Bernstein in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 17-2) Pages 1:14–19, 1:26–2:1. Otherwise granted. Granted Entire document. Granted Defendant’s Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 24) Pages i:7–9, i:12, i:15, 1:25– Granted 2:1, 2:11–12, 2:16, 2:22–2:26, 3:12–13, 3:15–19, 4:13–14, 4:16, 4:18–19, 4:26–5:3, 5:5– 8, 7:6–7, 7:10, 7:14–15, 7:23– 8:1, 8:6–12, 8:20–27, 9:3–10, 9:12–14, 9:16, 10:21. Case No.: 22-cv-02566-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFT.’S ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL 6 Case 5:22-cv-02566-EJD Document 27 Filed 02/15/23 Page 7 of 7 1 2 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22) Pages i:14–16, i:18–19, 5:21– 28, 6:1–10, 6:12–14, 6:18–21, 7:11, 7:17–23, 8:3–9, 8:22, 9:1, 9:5–7, 9:10–22, 10:8–9, 11:9–11, 11:13–14. Denied Declaration of Brian S. King in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 22-1) Page 2:6-17. Denied 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 Defendant shall submit a revised redacted version of its opening brief that reflects the above rulings by February 28, 2023. Plaintiff may renew her sealing request by filing submissions that comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 by February 28, 2023. If the parties elect not to resubmit revised redactions by February 28, 2023, the Court shall unseal the documents in their entirety, with the exception of direct quotations from the Settlement Agreement. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 15, 2023 17 18 19 EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 22-cv-02566-EJD ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFT.’S ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
