Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC v. Falck Northern California Corp.
- Saundra Armstrong
- 4:19-cv-06104
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions v. Falck Northern California, Chief Magistrate Judge C. Spero granted Falck’s July 9 sealing motion in part, denied it in part, and denied the others.
Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC and Falck, including Falck USA, Inc. and related entities, were required to make specified documents public. Nonparties AMR and Robert Garrett were involved through confidentiality designations, and the order also addressed materials containing deposition testimony.
What happened
Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC v. Falck Northern California Corp. concerns competing requests to keep documents private in connection with Falck’s sanctions motion. The order also applies to the substantially identical filings in a related case involving Falck USA, Inc. and Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC.
Falck asked to seal materials based on confidentiality designations by Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions and AMR. Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions separately asked to seal portions of its opposition and supporting documents based on designations by AMR and Robert Garrett. Falck later asked to seal portions of its reply based on designations by Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions and AMR.
The court granted Falck’s July 9, 2021 sealing motion in part and denied it in part, denied Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions’ sealing motion, and denied Falck’s July 30, 2021 sealing motion. The court ordered public unredacted or redacted filings between October 5 and October 12, 2021, subject to a possible renewed motion concerning two deposition pages. Chief Magistrate Judge C. Spero signed the order.
The detailed version
- Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC v. Falck Northern California Corp. · No. 4:19-cv-06104
- Saundra Armstrong
- Sept. 30, 2021
Background
Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC (SGCS) and Falck USA, Inc., together with related entities referred to as Falck, filed competing administrative motions to seal documents connected with Falck’s motion for sanctions. The order uses the docket numbers from Case No. 19-cv-06104 but states that it applies equally to the substantially identical filings in Case No. 19-cv-08171.
Legal standard
The court applied the “compelling reasons” standard because the documents were submitted with a sanctions motion that could have resulted in termination of SGCS’s claims. Under the court’s stated standard, sealing requests must be narrowly tailored to seal only material that qualifies for protection. When a party seeks to seal material designated confidential by another party or a nonparty, the designating party must file a response explaining why sealing is justified.
Falck’s July 9, 2021 motion
Falck sought to seal materials based solely on confidentiality designations by SGCS and nonparty AMR. SGCS submitted a declaration by its chief operating officer, Michael Coffin, supporting sealing portions of the materials. AMR did not submit a response.
The court granted Falck’s motion only as to specified portions of Falck’s sanctions motion, portions of the Coffin, LeSage, Lenn, and Garrett deposition transcripts, and specified exhibits. The court denied the motion as to all other materials. The court noted that some pages identified by SGCS were not included in the cited exhibits, so it could not determine whether those pages warranted sealing. It permitted SGCS to file a new, specifically identified motion concerning other copies of those pages.
Falck was ordered to file public unredacted versions of documents that were not specifically approved for sealing and public redacted versions of documents sealed only in part, no earlier than October 5, 2021, and no later than October 12, 2021.
SGCS’s sealing motion
SGCS sought to seal portions of its opposition brief and supporting documents based solely on confidentiality designations by AMR and nonparty Robert Garrett. Neither AMR nor Garrett filed a response explaining why the materials should remain sealed. The court therefore denied SGCS’s motion and ordered SGCS to file the documents unredacted in the public record between October 5 and October 12, 2021.
Falck’s July 30, 2021 motion
Falck sought to seal portions of its reply brief based on confidentiality designations by SGCS and AMR. The supporting declaration described the material to be sealed only as portions of the reply that cited, quoted, or summarized unspecified material. Neither SGCS nor AMR filed a response. The court denied this motion and ordered Falck to file its reply brief unredacted between October 5 and October 12, 2021.
Disposition
The order states that Falck’s July 9, 2021 sealing motion was granted in part and denied in part, and that the remaining sealing motions were denied. The parties were ordered to make the required public filings within the stated date range. If SGCS filed a renewed motion concerning page 129 of the Coffin deposition transcript or page 164 of the LeSage deposition transcript, Falck was instructed not to file documents containing those pages until the court resolved the renewed motion. C. Spero, Chief Magistrate Judge, signed the order.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.