Day v. GEICO Casualty Company et al, No. 5:2021cv02103 - Document 204 (N.D. Cal. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE 189 PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 12/5/2023. (mdllc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2023)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JESSICA DAY, 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY, et al., 10 Defendants. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE FILED UNDER SEAL Re: ECF No. 189 12 14 Case No. 21-cv-02103-BLF On October 20, 2023, Plaintiff Jessica Day (“Plaintiff”) filed an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed regarding the brief and exhibits Plaintiff filed provisionally under seal in support of her opposition to Defendants GEICO Casualty Company, GEICO Indemnity Company, and GEICO General Insurance Company’s (together, “GEICO” or “Defendants”) motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s operative complaint. See Admin. Mot., ECF No. 189. On October 27, 2023, Defendants filed a statement pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) regarding their position on sealing the documents and information at issue. Defs.’ Statement Re Sealing (“Statement”) ¶ 3, ECF No. 119. Plaintiff has not filed a response to the Statement. Having reviewed the parties’ submissions and applicable sealing law, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion. 23 I. 24 25 26 27 28 LEGAL STANDARD “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 1 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 2 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 3 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto 4 Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming 5 the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 6 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 7 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Accordingly, the compelling reasons 8 standard applies to documents related to a summary judgment motion. See id. at 1179. In addition, the Local Rules of this Court require that all requests to seal be “narrowly United States District Court Northern District of California 9 10 tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). That is, the sealing motion 11 must include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a 12 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 13 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 14 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Id. at 79-5(c)(1). 15 II. 16 DISCUSSION Plaintiff filed 14 documents partially or fully under seal related to her opposition to 17 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, i.e., a redacted version of her opposition brief and 18 Exhibits 1, 3, 5–10, 12–16. Of the 13 exhibits at issue, Defendants (1) state that Exhibit 13 is 19 entirely non-confidential; (2) request that the Court maintain Exhibits 3, 6–8, 10, 12, and 14–16 20 under seal in their entirety; (3) maintain under seal identified portions of Exhibits 1 and 9; and (4) 21 do not inform the Court of their position regarding Exhibit 5. See Statement 2–5. Defendants 22 have also identified portions of Plaintiff’s provisionally redacted opposition brief that it does not 23 seek to maintain under seal, and other portions that it requests remain under seal. See id. at 2. 24 Plaintiff does not oppose the sealing request. See Admin. Mot. Prop. Order 1, ECF No. 189-2 25 (proposing the provisionally redacted information remain under seal). 26 The documents and information at issue are deposition transcripts; declarations; internal 27 emails, memoranda, presentations, and reports; and—in Exhibit 12—a petition in a confidential 28 proceeding before the California Department of Insurance (“CDI”). Defendants assert that the 2 1 information they seek to maintain under seal consists of non-public, sensitive financial data, as 2 well as competitive business intelligence and strategy discussions. See Statement 2–5. 3 Defendants argue that the disclosure of this information would give competitors an unfair 4 advantage and hurt GEICO’s business strategy. With respect to Exhibit 12, Defendants argue that 5 the document was filed in a confidential proceeding before the CDI, and that it should remain 6 confidential “[f]or the sake of the integrity of future such [confidential] proceedings, especially 7 ones that lead to confidential settlements.” See id. at 4. United States District Court Northern District of California 8 Courts in this circuit have held that confidential business information in the form of 9 “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business 10 strategies” satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., 11 No. 17-cv-4810, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020); see also, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, 12 Inc., 298 F. App’x. 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons for sealing “business 13 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive strategy,” including confidential contract 14 terms); In re Google Location Hist. Litig., No. 5:18-cv-05062-EJD, 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1162 15 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021) (“Compelling reasons may exist to seal ‘trade secrets, marketing 16 strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific financial information, customer 17 information, internal reports[.]’”) (citation omitted); Simpson Strong-Tie Co. Inc. v. MiTek Inc., 18 No. 20-cv-06957-VKD, 2023 WL 350401, at *2–3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2023) (granting sealing 19 request under compelling reasons standard of “confidential business development and internal 20 business strategy documents and intellectual property of MiTek, including internal MiTek research 21 and development information”); Zogenix, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 3908529, at *1 n.1 (N.D. 22 Cal. May 26, 2022) (granting request to seal “internal conversations” about corporate “decision- 23 making process” in connection with summary judgment motion). 24 Having reviewed Defendants’ arguments, the relevant case law, and the documents at 25 issue, the Court finds that Defendants have shown compelling reasons to seal the requested 26 portions of Exhibits 1, 3, 6–10, and 14–16. See In re Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x at 569; Exeltis USA 27 Inc., 2020 WL 2838812, at *1. The Court additionally finds that the confidential nature of the 28 proceeding before the CDI constitutes a compelling reason to maintain under the seal the petition 3 1 filed in that proceeding, i.e., Exhibit 12. Further, the Court further finds Defendants’ requests to 2 be narrowly tailored. However, the Court finds that Defendants have not shown compelling 3 reasons to seal Exhibit 5, which is not included in Defendants’ Statement. 4 5 6 7 The Court's rulings on the documents at issue are set forth in the table below. For clarity, the Court notes that “GRANT” will maintain sealing. Document Portions Portions GEICO Court’s Provisionally Requests be Ruling Sealed Maintained Under Seal Reasoning 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 1 Plaintiff’s Opposition to GEICO’s Motion for Summary Judgment 2:25–3:6; 3:21–4:6; 4:9–19; 5:5–22; 6:16–18; 9:18–19; 11:15–17; 19:14–17; 23:2–9; 24:1–2. 4:9–19 9:18–19 23:2–9 2 Ex. 1 to Declaration of R. Schug Hackman Deposition: 80:1–4; 82:2–9. Hackman Deposition: No sealing requested. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 GRANTED. Contains confidential financial information and Californiaspecific rate information, disclosure of which would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair advantage. GRANTED. Contains confidential financial information and Californiaspecific rate information, Rinella Deposition: Rinella Deposition: disclosure of which 14:1–5; 37:13–17; would give GEICO’s 37:13–17; 52:19–20. competitors an unfair 52:19–20. advantage. Ward Deposition: Ward Deposition: 80:16–22; 31:8–33:22; 85:1–22; 36:11–38:3; 87:6–22; 39:3–22; 126:13–129:22. 41:8–42:21; 80:16–22; Watkins 85:1–22; Deposition: 87:6–22; No sealing 126:13–129:22. requested. 26 27 28 Watkins Deposition: Entire document. 4 1 Portions Provisionally Sealed Portions GEICO Court’s Requests be Ruling Maintained Under Seal 3 Ex. 3 to Declaration of R. Schug Entire document. Entire document. 4 Ex. 5 to Declaration of R. Schug Entire document. N/A. Not included DENIED Defendants did not in Statement. WITHOUT provide a justification PREJUDICE. for maintaining Exhibit 5 under seal. Defendants shall submit a statement regarding their position on maintaining some or all of Exhibit 5 under seal within five days of the entry of this order. 5 Ex. 6 to Declaration of R. Schug Entire document. Entire document. 6 Ex. 7 to Declaration of R. Schug Entire document. Entire document. Document 2 Reasoning 3 4 5 6 7 8 GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding GEICO’s competitive business intelligence and strategy, disclosure of which would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair advantage. 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 5 GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding GEICO’s competitive business intelligence and strategy, disclosure of which would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair advantage. GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding GEICO’s competitive business intelligence and strategy, as well as internal figures, disclosure of which would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair 1 Document 2 Portions Provisionally Sealed Portions GEICO Court’s Requests be Ruling Maintained Under Seal Reasoning 3 4 5 7 Ex. 8 to Declaration of R. Schug 6 7 8 9 8 Ex. 9 to Declaration of R. Schug 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 9 Ex. 10 to Declaration of R. Schug 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 Ex. 12 to Declaration of R. Schug 11 Ex. 13 to Declaration of R. Schug 19 20 21 12 Ex. 14 to Declaration of R. Schug 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 Ex. 15 to Declaration of R. Schug advantage. GRANTED. Contains confidential financial information, disclosure of which would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair advantage. Redacted portion of Redacted portion of GRANTED. Contains confidential ¶ 73. ¶ 73. financial information, disclosure of which would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair advantage. Entire document. Entire document. GRANTED. Contains confidential financial information, disclosure of which would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair advantage. Entire document. Entire document. GRANTED. Document was filed in a confidential proceeding before the CDI. Entire document. No request to seal. GRANTED, GEICO does not seek so that to maintain the Exhibit 13 document under seal. will be unsealed. Entire document. Entire document. GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding GEICO’s competitive business intelligence and strategy, disclosure of which would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair advantage. Entire document. Entire document. GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding GEICO’s competitive business intelligence and strategy, disclosure of which Entire document. Entire document. 6 1 Document Portions Provisionally Sealed 2 Portions GEICO Court’s Requests be Ruling Maintained Under Seal Reasoning 3 4 5 6 14 Ex. 16 to Declaration of R. Schug Entire document. Entire document. 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 III. would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair advantage. GRANTED. Contains confidential information regarding GEICO’s competitive business intelligence and strategy, disclosure of which would give GEICO’s competitors an unfair advantage. ORDER Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 1. GEICO may file a renewed motion to maintain under seal Exhibit 5 to the 14 Declaration of R. Schug. Any such motion must be filed by December 7, 2023, and 15 may not exceed three pages in length. 16 2. Plaintiff shall file on the public docket her opposition brief and Exhibit 1, both 17 redacted in compliance with this order, as well as an unredacted version of Exhibit 18 13, by December 11, 2023. 19 3. If GEICO does not timely file a renewed motion to maintain Exhibit 5 under seal, 20 Plaintiff shall additionally file an unredacted version of Exhibit 5 by December 11, 21 2023. 22 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 5, 2023 25 26 Beth Labson Freeman United States District Judge 27 28 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.
