Dekker v. Vivint Solar, Inc.

Background

This omnibus order addressed administrative motions to seal materials filed with the plaintiff’s opposition to Vivint’s motion for partial summary judgment and with the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and related filings.

Legal standard

The court explained that court filings are generally open to the public. Materials more than tangentially related to the merits of a case may be sealed only for “compelling reasons.” Materials only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of “good cause.” Under the Northern District of California’s local rule, a sealing request must identify the private or public interests supporting secrecy, the injury that would result from disclosure, and why a less restrictive alternative would not work. The request must also be narrowly tailored. Supporting declarations must explain specifically why the material should remain sealed; a confidentiality designation, protective order, or general assertion of competitive harm is not enough.

Rulings on materials supporting the summary-judgment opposition

The court granted the request for Docket No. 190-5, Exhibit 1, because it contained specific and detailed confidential information whose disclosure could cause Vivint competitive harm.

The court denied the request for Docket No. 190-6, Exhibit 2, an excerpt from Colton Burr’s deposition. The request was overbroad and included material about Vivint’s written policies and default-payment calculations, issues at the heart of the litigation. The court also found that Vivint’s explanations about its marketing strategy, contract-termination fees, customer-termination data, and operations did not establish compelling reasons for sealing.

The court denied the request for Docket No. 208, the plaintiff’s opposition to Vivint’s motion for partial summary judgment, for the same reasons.

Rulings on class-certification materials

The court denied the request for Docket No. 193-15, Exhibit 4, because the proposed redactions were not narrowly tailored and included general or public material and material concerning Vivint’s efforts to document losses from customer defaults. The court also found that Vivint had not adequately explained how disclosure would harm its future negotiations or competition.

The court granted the requests for Docket Nos. 193-17 and 193-18, Exhibits 6 and 7, referring to the reasoning for Docket No. 190-5.

The court denied the requests for Docket No. 193-14, Exhibit 2 to Nora Ostrofe’s declaration, because the proposed redactions were overbroad, included information from the public version of the agreement, and were not supported by sufficient detail about possible competitive harm. The court also rejected the additional justification based on a document Vivint used for tax purposes.

The court denied the requests for Docket Nos. 193-13 and 193-22, involving the plaintiff’s motion for class certification and proposed trial plan, respectively, because Vivint’s stated justifications did not establish compelling reasons for sealing.

The court denied the request for Docket No. 213-7, Exhibit 3, an excerpt from Colton Burr’s deposition, referring to the reasoning for Docket Nos. 190-6 and 193-15.

The court granted the request for Docket No. 213-13, Exhibit 8, because it contained specific and detailed confidential information about the appraised values of particular Vivint systems, whose disclosure could cause competitive harm.

The court granted the request for Docket No. 213-15, Exhibit 9, a third-party appraisal of a typical residential solar-panel installation in California with an effective date of June 13, 2012. The court kept the appraisal’s substance confidential for now because its relevance at that stage was primarily that the appraisal existed. The court stated that the justification for continued sealing could change if the document were admitted at trial or its substance were addressed in more detail.

The court denied the request for Docket No. 213-17, Exhibit 10, excerpts from Nora Ostrofe’s deposition. The request covered pages 8 through 74 and was overbroad, including general questions, renewable-energy-finance topics, and logistical matters. The court found Vivint’s explanation to be boilerplate and insufficient.

The court denied the request for Docket No. 212-4, Vivint’s opposition to the motion for class certification. The proposed redactions were not supported by compelling reasons and included information going to the heart of the litigation.

The court denied the requests for Docket Nos. 217-4 and 217-3, involving excerpts from Colton Burr’s deposition and the plaintiff’s reply in support of class certification. The court found the requests overbroad or directed at material central to the case and supported by no more than general statements about competitive harm.

Disposition

The court held that the administrative motions to seal were granted in part and denied in part. The parties were ordered to refile all relevant documents in full compliance with the order by June 2.