Gau v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc.
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:20-cv-08250
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Gau v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Judge Van Keulen denied one sealing request without prejudice, granted others, and found a related stipulation moot.
The plaintiffs, Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., and the public were affected: the order controlled which materials related to class certification would remain publicly accessible or be filed under seal, and required the parties to follow the court’s sealing procedures.
What happened
In Gau v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc., the court considered two requests and a stipulation to keep materials related to a motion for class certification and its opposition from public view. The materials included deposition testimony, exhibits, and business information.
The court denied without prejudice the request to seal Exhibit D to the appendix supporting the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion. Hillstone may file a renewed request by April 8, 2022, if it follows the required procedures. The court granted requests to seal several other deposition exhibits and two exhibits to the John Reynolds Declaration in full because they contained confidential business, compensation, policy, evaluation, and business-practice information whose disclosure could cause Hillstone competitive harm.
Judge Susan Van Keulen also ruled that the stipulation concerning the sealing request was moot and was not a substitute for meeting the legal requirements for sealing court records. The parties were directed to follow the court’s local sealing rule for any future requests.
The detailed version
- Gau v. Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc. · No. 5:20-cv-08250
- Susan Van Keulen
- Mar. 31, 2022
Background
The court considered two administrative motions and a stipulation concerning the filing under seal of materials connected to the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and the opposition to that motion. The requested materials included excerpts of testimony and exhibits from Hillstone’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, as well as exhibits to the John Reynolds Declaration.
Court records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. Depending on how closely the records relate to the merits of the case, a party seeking to seal them must show either “compelling reasons” or “good cause.” The party must also comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, which requires particular submissions, including identification of the portions to be sealed, supporting reasons, proposed orders, and properly submitted redacted and unredacted versions.
Rulings on Docket 54
The court denied without prejudice the request to seal Exhibit D to the appendix of evidence supporting the plaintiffs’ class-certification motion. The court explained that the request did not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Hillstone’s supporting declaration did not identify the portions of Exhibit D it sought to seal, did not address the applicable legal standards or reasons for secrecy, and did not include the required proposed order. In addition, the parties did not provide the required redacted and highlighted unredacted versions. Exhibit D had also been filed publicly rather than as an attachment to the sealing motion.
The court stated that, if the material met the applicable legal standards, Hillstone could file a renewed motion to seal no later than April 8, 2022. Any renewed motion also had to include the required redacted and highlighted unredacted versions.
The court granted the request to seal the entire documents identified as Deposition Exhibits 19, 28, 32, 33, and 35. The court found that these materials contained confidential and proprietary business information, compensation information, policies, evaluation procedures, and descriptions of business practices. It determined that disclosure could cause competitive harm to Hillstone.
Ruling on Docket 60
The court granted the request to seal the entire Exhibit 31 and Exhibit 36 to the John Reynolds Declaration. It gave the same general reasons: the documents contained confidential and proprietary business information, compensation information, policies, evaluation procedures, and descriptions of business practices, and disclosure could cause competitive harm to Hillstone.
Stipulation concerning Docket 60
The court ruled that the stipulation concerning the administrative motion to seal documents covered by Docket 60 was moot because the court had separately ruled on the administrative motions. The court also stated that the stipulation was not appropriate because the applicable legal standards must be satisfied before material may be filed under seal. A reference to a stipulation or protective order allowing a party to designate documents as confidential is not enough by itself to establish that the documents are sealable.
The parties were directed to follow Civil Local Rule 79-5 for any future administrative motions to seal.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.