Bumpus v. Realogy Holdings Corp.
- James Donato
- 3:19-cv-03309
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 14
In Bumpus v. Realogy Holdings Corp., Judge Donato granted limited sealing requests, denied the rest, and ordered public versions of unsealed documents.
The plaintiffs, Realogy, defendant Mojo, the third parties that produced or designated documents as confidential, the nonparty Realogy contractors whose names and addresses were protected, and the public’s access to the court records.
What happened
In Bumpus v. Realogy Holdings Corp., the parties asked to keep documents connected to the plaintiffs’ request to proceed as a class action from public view. The documents had been marked confidential during discovery, and some involved information produced by Realogy, Mojo, and third parties.
The court granted sealing for documents containing the names and addresses of Realogy contractors who were not parties to the case. It denied the other requests because confidentiality labels and general claims of commercial or competitive harm did not adequately justify restricting public access, including for Realogy’s training materials.
Judge Donato ordered the plaintiffs and Realogy to file unredacted versions of the documents that the court declined to seal within seven days. The order addressed only the sealing requests, not the underlying class-certification dispute.
The detailed version
- Bumpus v. Realogy Holdings Corp. · No. 3:19-cv-03309
- James Donato
- Mar. 18, 2022
Background
The court considered motions to seal documents filed in connection with the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Realogy’s opposition and amended opposition, and the plaintiffs’ replies and amended reply. The motions concerned documents produced by the plaintiffs, Realogy, defendant Mojo, and third parties WAVV Communications LLC, PhoneBurner, Inc., and Verizon Services Corp. Some documents had been designated confidential under the protective order in the case.
The court explained that court records are generally public and that the party seeking to seal them must show specific, compelling reasons that outweigh the public’s interest in access. A general assertion of possible competitive or commercial harm is not enough. Nor is the fact that a document was labeled confidential under a protective order.
Rulings
The court granted sealing for the documents containing the names and addresses of Realogy contractors who were not parties to the lawsuit. It found that the documents contained the contractors’ private personal information and that their privacy should not be disclosed. The court granted the requests for the identified exhibits in the plaintiffs’ class-certification memorandum, reply, and amended reply that contained this information.
The court denied the other sealing requests listed in Exhibit A. These included requests concerning Realogy’s training materials, its do-not-contact policy and contractor-onboarding processes, documents produced by Mojo, and documents designated confidential by WAVV Communications, PhoneBurner, Verizon Services, the plaintiffs, or Realogy. The court found that the supporting explanations were insufficient, including because some requests relied only on confidentiality designations and because Realogy did not show a plausible business risk from disclosure of its training materials.
Effect of the Order
The court stated that public access applied by default to the documents it declined to seal. It directed the plaintiffs and Realogy to file unredacted versions of those documents on the court’s electronic filing system within seven days of the order. This was an order on access to court records; it did not decide the underlying request for class certification.
Disposition
The sealing motions were granted as to the limited documents containing the names and addresses of nonparty Realogy contractors and denied as to the other requests, as specified in Exhibit A. Judge James Donato signed the order on March 18, 2022.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.