Bumpus v. Realogy Holdings Corp.
- James Donato
- 3:19-cv-03309
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 19
In Bumpus v. Realogy, Judge Donato granted some sealing requests and denied others, largely requiring public access to court records.
The plaintiffs, Realogy, Mojo, WAVV Communications, PhoneBurner, the plaintiffs’ expert witness’s company Class Expert Group, and the public’s access to court records. The plaintiffs and Realogy were directed to file unredacted versions of documents the court declined to seal within seven days.
What happened
In Bumpus v. Realogy, the parties asked the Northern District of California to seal documents filed with summary-judgment and expert-witness motions. The requests covered materials produced by the plaintiffs, Realogy, Mojo, WAVV Communications, and PhoneBurner.
The court said court records are generally public and that a party seeking secrecy must provide specific facts showing that disclosure would cause serious harm. Merely labeling discovery materials confidential, relying on a protective order, or making general claims of commercial sensitivity was not enough.
The court granted some requests and denied others, as listed in an attached chart. It allowed sealing of certain contractor names and addresses, independent-contractor agreements, plaintiffs’ personal phone records, and confidential information about the plaintiffs’ expert witness’s company. It denied sealing for many training materials, calling policies, and documents supported only by confidentiality labels. Judge Donato directed the plaintiffs and Realogy to file unredacted versions of documents the court declined to seal within seven days.
The detailed version
- Bumpus v. Realogy Holdings Corp. · No. 3:19-cv-03309
- James Donato
- Aug. 22, 2022
Background
The court considered motions to seal documents filed with the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, Realogy’s summary-judgment motions, and Realogy’s expert-evidence motions. The documents included materials produced by the plaintiffs, Realogy, Mojo, WAVV Communications, and PhoneBurner. The court incorporated its earlier discussion of sealing standards from In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litigation.
Standard for sealing
The court explained that judicial records are presumptively public. The party seeking to seal records must identify compelling reasons, supported by specific facts, that outweigh the public’s interest in access. General claims of possible competitive or commercial harm do not meet that burden. A confidentiality designation under a protective order also does not, by itself, justify sealing.
Under the court’s attached chart, WAVV Communications and PhoneBurner did not submit declarations explaining why their documents should be sealed. Mojo submitted a declaration for documents in the plaintiffs’ sealing motion but not for documents in Realogy’s sealing motion. The court found that confidentiality labels and Mojo’s general statement that materials contained commercially sensitive information were insufficient.
Rulings
The court granted sealing for a limited group of materials. These included a document containing the names and addresses of Realogy contractors who were not parties to the case; Realogy’s independent-contractor agreements and related materials concerning compensation and the contractor relationship; plaintiffs’ personal phone records; and a document containing confidential business information about Class Expert Group, the company owned by the plaintiffs’ expert witness, and its relationship with LexisNexis.
The court denied sealing for many other materials. These included Realogy training materials, Do Not Call and Do Not Contact policies, materials concerning Mojo’s operations and training, and documents for which third parties relied only on confidentiality designations without providing supporting reasons. The court also denied requests involving materials that were not narrowly tailored or for which Realogy itself did not believe sealing was necessary.
The chart records separate rulings on the requests connected to each motion. The court directed the plaintiffs and Realogy to file unredacted versions of documents that it declined to seal within seven days of the order. Judge James Donato signed the order.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.