UnifySCC v. Cody
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-01019
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In UnifySCC v. Cody, Judge Freeman granted defendants’ motion to seal employee personal information in specified exhibits.
The order affects Defendants, including the County of Santa Clara, the employees whose identifying information appears in the specified exhibits, and members of the public seeking access to those portions of the court record.
What happened
In UnifySCC v. Cody, the defendants asked to seal unredacted versions of exhibits filed with their summary-judgment motion. The County of Santa Clara said the exhibits contained employee names, personal email addresses, and other identifying information. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion.
The court found compelling reasons to seal the specified portions because they contained personally identifying information, including names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and employee identification numbers. The court also found that the information was not material to the merits and that the request was limited to only the sealable material.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Seal, covering the highlighted portions of the listed exhibits. The order did not decide the underlying claims or the summary-judgment motion.
The detailed version
- UnifySCC v. Cody · No. 5:22-cv-01019
- Beth Freeman
- Aug. 15, 2024
Background
Defendants filed an administrative motion to seal. Defendant County of Santa Clara sought to seal unredacted versions of exhibits that it had submitted in redacted form with Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The County identified the material as employee identifying information, including employee names and personal email addresses. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records are generally available for public inspection. Records more than tangentially related to the merits of a case may be sealed only for “compelling reasons,” while records only tangentially related to the merits require a lesser showing of “good cause.” The court also applied Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires a sealing request to explain the interests supporting secrecy, the harm from disclosure, why a less restrictive alternative would not work, and, when necessary, provide evidentiary support. A proposed sealing order must be narrowly tailored to cover only sealable material.
Court’s analysis
The court found compelling reasons to seal the requested portions. The material included personally identifying information such as names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses. It also included employee identification numbers, which the court said could be used to obtain sensitive information, including an employee’s income, leave status, exemption status, and vaccination status. The court further found that this personally identifying information was not material to the merits of the motion.
The court determined that the request was narrowly tailored because the County sought to seal only the specified personally identifying information and no other information in the exhibits. The order granted sealing for the identified portions of Exhibit 1 and Exhibits M, T, U, V, W, Y, Z, and BB to the listed declarations and deposition materials.
Disposition
Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered that Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Seal, ECF No. 142, was granted. This order addressed access to specified portions of exhibits and did not resolve the underlying claims or the motion for summary judgment.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.