True Health Chiropractic Inc v. McKesson Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:13-cv-02219
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In True Health Chiropractic v. McKesson, Judge Gilliam granted one sealing motion and denied another concerning class-decertification materials.
The parties, potential class members whose identifying information appeared in the subpoena responses, and members of the public seeking access to the court records.
What happened
True Health Chiropractic Inc. v. McKesson Corporation involved two requests to keep court records from public view. One request concerned subpoena responses from telephone carriers, and the other concerned parts of defendants’ filings and an expert-report excerpt about class decertification.
The court found compelling reasons to seal the subpoena responses because they contained potential class members’ phone numbers and specific customer-service information. But it found no specific harm supporting secrecy for the excerpts in the filings and expert report; labeling the source documents confidential was not enough.
Judge Gilliam granted Dkt. No. 460 and denied Dkt. No. 481. The court ordered the parties to file public versions of documents covered by the denied request within seven days, while documents covered by the granted request would remain sealed.
The detailed version
- True Health Chiropractic Inc v. McKesson Corporation · No. 4:13-cv-02219
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 23, 2022
Background
The court considered two administrative motions to seal records. Dkt. No. 460 sought to seal Exhibit A to the declaration of Ross M. Good in its entirety. Dkt. No. 481 sought to seal portions of defendants’ response to the order to show cause why the class should not be decertified and Exhibit A to the declaration of Bonnie Lau.
The documents involved subpoena responses from third-party telephone carriers, along with portions of briefing and an expert report that excerpted those responses. The court noted that the materials related to class decertification, which was more than tangentially related to the merits of the underlying case.
Legal standard
Because the records were connected to class decertification, the court applied the “compelling reasons” standard. That standard requires the party seeking secrecy to identify compelling reasons, supported by specific facts, that outweigh the public’s strong interest in access to judicial records. The court explained that privacy interests and the protection of trade secrets can sometimes satisfy this standard, but embarrassment or possible further litigation alone is not enough.
Analysis
The court found compelling reasons to seal the underlying subpoena responses. They contained personal identifying information of potential class members, including phone numbers and specific information about customers’ services. Although some other information in the responses did not independently warrant sealing, the confidential information appeared throughout the documents and was closely intertwined with the substance of the responses. The court also found that the public interest in the underlying documents was limited because their substance had been summarized in the court’s class-decertification order and in the briefing and expert report.
The court reached a different conclusion about the excerpts in defendants’ briefing and expert report. The parties had not made the required particularized showing of specific prejudice or harm from disclosure. The fact that the excerpts came from documents marked “confidential” by plaintiffs and third-party telephone carriers was insufficient. The court also noted that plaintiffs had not filed a declaration establishing that the documents were sealable within the seven-day period required by Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3). In addition, the parties did not explain how generalized statements about telephone carriers’ record maintenance and fax services—separate from customer-identifying information—would cause harm. Because the court relied on those statements in decertifying the class, it found that public access was important to understanding the proceedings.
Ruling and effect
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted Dkt. No. 460 and denied Dkt. No. 481. Documents covered by the granted motion would remain under seal under Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(1). The court directed the parties to file public versions of all documents for which sealing had been denied within seven days of the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.