Miller v. RP On-Site, LLC

Background

The court considered two administrative motions to file documents under seal in connection with Brian Miller’s motion for class certification. Miller asked to seal the deposition transcript of RP On-Site’s corporate designee and exhibits to that deposition. RP On-Site asked to seal portions of its opposition to class certification and portions of Miller’s class-certification motion.

Legal standard

The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Because the materials concerned class certification, which can overlap with the factual and legal issues underlying a plaintiff’s claims, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard rather than the less demanding “good cause” standard. Under that standard, sealing generally requires a showing such as protection against improper use of court records or disclosure of trade secrets; embarrassment, possible self-incrimination, or possible further litigation is not enough by itself.

The court also required compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. That rule requires a declaration explaining why the material is sealable, a narrowly tailored proposed order listing each document or portion sought to be sealed in a table, and an unredacted version showing the omitted portions through highlighting or another clear method.

The court’s analysis

The court found three procedural defects in RP On-Site’s sealing motion. RP On-Site did not file a supporting declaration for its own motion or for materials it had designated confidential under a protective order. Its proposed order did not list each document or portion sought to be sealed in a table. It also failed to highlight the redactions in the unredacted documents. The court said this required it to cross-reference redacted and unredacted exhibits and created an unreasonable burden.

The court also found that RP On-Site applied the wrong “good cause” standard. The court held that the “compelling reasons” standard applied to documents related to class certification.

The court found similar problems with Miller’s motion. Miller did not submit a proposed order complying with the local rule and also applied the wrong standard. In addition, the court found the requests overbroad and insufficiently supported. Miller sought to seal 10 of 11 deposition exhibits in their entirety, supported by a declaration that used the same general assertion that each exhibit contained confidential private information. The court noted that this assertion was made even about documents that plainly did not contain such information, including Miller’s notice of the deposition.

Disposition

The court denied Miller’s sealing motion and RP On-Site’s sealing motion without prejudice. It ordered each party to file a renewed sealing motion, or a joint sealing motion, by December 11, 2020. Any renewed request had to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, apply the compelling-reasons standard, and be narrowly tailored. The court warned that an entire document would only rarely be sealable when a request was properly narrowed.