Hetland v. LendingTree, LLC

Background

The parties filed administrative motions asking the court to place documents under seal. LendingTree sought to seal exhibits and supporting documents related to its summary-judgment motion and reply. C. Johannes Hetland sought to seal documents supporting his opposition. The court explained that judicial records are generally presumed to be open to the public and that a party seeking to seal them must show compelling reasons, such as protection for trade secrets, privileged material, or other information entitled to legal protection.

LendingTree’s summary-judgment materials

The court held that Exhibits A through E and G through M supporting LendingTree’s summary-judgment motion could be sealed because they contained confidential business information that revealed aspects of LendingTree’s business model and strategy.

The court held that the excerpts of Exhibit F did not warrant sealing. Those excerpts concerned e-mail discussions about Hetland, Mr. Wilson, workplace culture at the Burlingame office, and disputes between Hetland and other LendingTree employees. The court found that the material did not contain sensitive personal information or business information that justified restricting public access.

Hetland’s opposition materials

The court held that Exhibits A through O attached to Hetland’s sealing motion could be sealed because they contained confidential business information reflecting LendingTree’s business model and strategy. The court stated that a confidentiality designation under a protective order, by itself, was not enough to justify sealing.

The court held that Exhibit P could not be sealed. The exhibit contained information about Hetland’s work performance and his complaints about compensation, but the excerpts did not discuss specific compensation-plan terms reflecting a business model or strategy and did not contain sealable personal or private information.

The court also held that most of Exhibit Q could not be sealed. The e-mails concerned Hetland’s work performance, discussions about restructuring the Burlingame team and eliminating his position, and Mr. Wilson’s grievances about Hetland’s complaints and conduct. The court found that this material did not justify sealing.

The court held that one e-mail in Exhibit R could not be sealed for similar reasons. It held, however, that another e-mail in Exhibit R, concerning LendingTree’s organizational structure and related talking points, contained sealable information about the company’s business model and strategy. Accordingly, the court found Exhibit R sealable in part.

LendingTree’s reply materials

The court held that Exhibits N and O supporting LendingTree’s reply could be sealed. Exhibit N contained information about LendingTree’s monthly search-engine-marketing revenue. Exhibit O contained information about certain employees’ compensation plans and messages about how those plans were calculated. The court found that disclosure could create a risk of competitive harm.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states that LendingTree’s first administrative motion to seal was granted in part and denied in part. It likewise states that Hetland’s sealing motion was granted in part and denied in part, although the text omits the word “in” before “part” in the phrase describing the denial. The court granted LendingTree’s motion to seal the exhibits attached to its reply. The order was entered on May 3, 2021, by Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley.