Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 24, 2020

True Health Chiropractic Inc v. McKesson Corporation

Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Docket
4:13-cv-02219
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In True Health Chiropractic v. McKesson, Judge Gilliam granted defendants’ motion to seal exhibits containing customer information.

Who this affects

The ruling affects defendants’ exhibits containing personally identifiable customer information and limits public access to those documents. It does not decide defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment.

What happened

In True Health Chiropractic Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, defendants asked to seal several exhibits supporting their motion to decertify the class and their motion for partial summary judgment. The exhibits included spreadsheets containing personally identifiable information about defendants’ customers.

The court applied the heightened “compelling reasons” standard because the filings were more than only slightly related to the case’s underlying claims. It found that the customer information was nonpublic, competitively sensitive, and generally qualified as trade-secret information, while the public interest in seeing the specific spreadsheets was limited.

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted defendants’ administrative motion to seal. The documents covered by the ruling will remain under seal; the court deferred ruling on defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
True Health Chiropractic Inc v. McKesson Corporation · No. 4:13-cv-02219
Judge
Haywood Gilliam
Date
Dec. 24, 2020

Background

Defendants filed an administrative motion to seal several exhibits submitted in support of their motion to decertify the class and their concurrently filed motion for partial summary judgment. The exhibits included nonpublic spreadsheets containing personally identifiable information for defendants’ customers.

Legal standard

For court records filed with motions that are closely related to the merits of a case, the court generally applies a “compelling reasons” standard. Under that standard, the party seeking secrecy must identify specific reasons that outweigh the public’s general right to inspect court records. Civil Local Rule 79-5 also requires the request to be narrowly tailored and supported by a showing that the material is privileged, a trade secret, or otherwise legally protected.

Court’s reasoning

The court determined that defendants’ filings connected to the class-decertification motion were more than tangentially related to the underlying claims, so the compelling-reasons standard applied. The court found that defendants met their burden because the spreadsheets contained nonpublic, competitively sensitive customer information. It also found that this information generally constituted trade secrets, that the public interest in releasing the particular spreadsheets was limited, and that defendants had a strong interest in keeping potentially trade-secret information confidential. Balancing those interests, the court concluded that the information should remain sealed.

Ruling

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted defendants’ administrative sealing motion. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), the documents covered by the granted motion will remain under seal. The opinion states that the court deferred ruling on defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.