San Pedro-Salcedo v. The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc.

Background

The parties filed numerous administrative motions asking the court to seal portions of filings connected to Plaintiff Melanie G. San Pedro-Salcedo’s motion for class certification and Defendant The Haagen-Dazs Shoppe Company, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. The order addressed motions identified by docket numbers 92, 99, 104, 111, 117, 118, 119, 121, 123, 124, 127, and 128.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the records concerned class certification and summary judgment, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, the party seeking secrecy had to provide specific facts showing that confidentiality interests outweighed the public’s interest in disclosure. The court stated that broad claims of possible harm, a confidentiality designation under a protective order, embarrassment, or possible further litigation were not enough by themselves.

Rulings on class-certification filings

For Plaintiff’s motion for class certification and Exhibits 3 and 4 to Michael Jaurigue’s declaration, the court denied each sealing request. The court found that Defendant had not met the compelling-reasons standard. It also found that the material largely concerned Defendant’s communications to the public and, for Exhibit 4, that the request was not narrowly tailored.

For Defendants’ opposition to Plaintiff’s class-certification motion, the court denied the request to seal the specified portions of the opposition because Defendant had not met the compelling-reasons standard and the material largely concerned Defendant’s communications to the public.

For Jennifer McLean’s supporting declaration, the court granted the request as to paragraph 15 and otherwise denied it. The court granted the request to seal Exhibit A in its entirety and denied the request to seal Exhibit B in its entirety.

For Matthew Bishop’s supporting declaration, the court granted the request as to paragraph 11 and otherwise denied it. The court granted the request to seal Exhibit A in its entirety and denied the requests to seal Exhibits B and C in their entirety. For the portions of the declaration that it did not seal, the court also stated that the material largely concerned Defendant’s communications to the public.

For Plaintiff’s reply supporting class certification, the court denied the requested sealing of the specified portions because Defendant had not met the compelling-reasons standard and the material largely concerned Defendant’s communications to the public.

Rulings on summary-judgment filings

The court denied without prejudice Defendant’s motion to seal its motion for summary judgment. The motion did not comply with the civil local rules. The court allowed Defendant to file a compliant renewed motion within seven days, but directed that the renewed motion could not seek to seal material for which the court had already denied sealing.

The court also denied without prejudice the motions concerning Plaintiff’s opposition to summary judgment. The parties could file one joint, compliant motion within seven days, supported by a declaration from the party or parties that designated the material. The renewed joint motion could not seek to seal material for which the court had already denied sealing.

Finally, the court denied without prejudice Defendant’s motion to seal its reply separate statement and exhibits. Defendant could file a compliant renewed motion within seven days, subject to the same restriction against seeking to seal material for which the court had already denied sealing.

Disposition

Judge Edward J. Davila denied the specified sealing requests, granted certain requests in full or in limited part, and denied without prejudice the three noncompliant summary-judgment-related sealing motions, with permission to refile under the conditions in the order.