Quackenbush v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc.
- William Alsup
- 3:20-cv-05599
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Quackenbush v. American Honda, Judge Alsup ruled on class notice and sealing requests, granting some, denying others, and allowing targeted refiling.
The named plaintiffs, the class members whose names and addresses appeared in the class and exclusion lists, American Honda Motor Company, Inc., Honda Motor Company, Ltd., and the public’s access to the specified court filings.
What happened
Quackenbush v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. involved plaintiffs’ response about updated notice to the class and several requests to keep court filings from public view. The court accepted counsel’s representation that additional notice was unnecessary, so notice under the American Pipe rule was not required.
The court granted the request to seal the class and exclusion lists, which contained class members’ names and addresses. It denied some requests to seal expert rate estimates, summary-judgment materials, and certain call-log excerpts; denied other call-log requests without prejudice, allowing revised requests with targeted redactions within fourteen days; and granted in part and denied in part a request concerning a summary-judgment reply. It also granted requests to seal discussions of medical conditions affecting trial postponements.
Judge William Alsup entered the order on July 25, 2023. Revised materials were due within twenty-one days, and the order otherwise addressed only notice and sealing requests rather than deciding the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Quackenbush v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-05599
- William Alsup
- July 25, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs submitted a response concerning an updated notice to the class. The court deferred to counsel’s representation that further notice was unnecessary and ruled that notice under the American Pipe rule would not be required.
The plaintiffs also filed class-notice and exclusion lists as exhibits to the Schwartz Declaration. They asked to seal those exhibits in their entirety because they contained class members’ names and addresses.
The parties filed several administrative motions to seal materials connected with summary judgment. A motion to seal asks the court to restrict public access to filings or portions of filings. The court explained that materials more than tangentially related to the merits may be sealed only for compelling reasons, while materials only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of good cause.
Rulings on Sealing Requests
- The plaintiffs’ request to seal the class and exclusion lists was GRANTED. - The defendants’ request concerning the estimated rates of a variable valve timing, or VTC, rattle from each side’s expert, filed with their summary-judgment motion (Dkt. No. 207-4), was DENIED. The court found that the issue went to the heart of the action and that high-level summaries of the competing conclusions were important to the summary-judgment decision. - The defendants’ requests to redact portions of the failure-rate analysis report containing granular calculations, projections, and some customer-research data (Dkt. No. 207-6), and to redact personal addresses (Dkt. Nos. 207-8 and 207-10), were GRANTED. - The plaintiffs’ request concerning estimated failure rates in their opposition to summary judgment (Dkt. No. 222-3) was DENIED. Their request to seal all of the related customer-inquiry call logs (Dkt. No. 222-5) was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because it was overbroad. Either party could submit a revised request within fourteen days seeking targeted redactions of information that could identify individual customers. - The defendants’ request concerning the same estimated failure rates in their opposition to summary judgment (Dkt. No. 226-4) was DENIED. Their request concerning the call logs (Dkt. No. 226-6) was DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the same reason, with the same fourteen-day opportunity for a revised request with targeted customer-identifying redactions. - The defendants’ request concerning their summary-judgment reply (Dkt. No. 229-3) was GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The court allowed sealing of exact sales figures for specific vehicles, time periods, and locations, as well as exact warranty-repair costs, but declined to extend that protection to non-exact figures or generalized descriptions. The court did not allow estimated warranty rates to be sealed because of their importance to the action.
Medical Information and Final Directions
The parties also sought to seal materials concerning two trial postponements caused by unforeseen medical events. The court found good cause because the materials had limited relevance to the merits and implicated private medical histories. The motions concerning Dkt. Nos. 262, 265, and 280 were GRANTED as described in the corresponding proposed orders.
The court ordered that revised materials be filed within twenty-one days. This order addressed class notice and public access to filings; it did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.