UnifySCC v. Cody
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-01019
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In UNIFYSCC v. Cody, Judge Freeman granted in part and denied in part a request to seal materials connected to class certification.
The order affected Plaintiffs, the County of Santa Clara, the employees whose names and identification numbers appeared in the materials, and public access to the class-certification filings.
What happened
In UNIFYSCC v. Sara H. Cody, Plaintiffs asked the court to decide whether certain materials connected to their class-certification motion should remain sealed. The County of Santa Clara supported sealing some employee information.
The court denied sealing Exhibit K and the highlighted portions of Plaintiffs’ class-certification motion. It granted sealing for employee identification numbers in Exhibit V and employee identification numbers and names in Exhibit O because the information could identify employees and was not material to the class-certification motion.
The court ordered Plaintiffs to file public versions of the motion and Exhibit K within 10 days. Judge Beth Labson Freeman therefore granted in part and denied in part the administrative sealing motion.
The detailed version
- UnifySCC v. Cody · No. 5:22-cv-01019
- Beth Freeman
- Oct. 23, 2023
Background
Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion asking the court to consider whether materials designated confidential by another party should be sealed in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class. The County of Santa Clara filed a statement supporting the sealing of specified portions of Exhibits V and O. The court applied the “compelling reasons” standard because the materials related to class certification and were more than tangentially related to the case’s merits.
Sealing Requests
The County supported sealing highlighted portions of Exhibit V, which contained employee identification numbers referenced in an expert declaration. It also supported sealing employee identification numbers in the first column and employee names in the second column of Exhibit O, a spreadsheet containing information about employees, including job classification, accommodations, and employment status. The court found that employee identification numbers were personally identifiable information that could be used to obtain other sensitive information, and that the information was not material to the class-certification motion. The court also found that the request was narrowly tailored because it sought to seal only employee names and identification numbers.
The court denied the request to seal Exhibit K because the County stated that the document could be filed publicly. It also denied the request to seal the highlighted portions of Plaintiffs’ class-certification motion because neither party supported sealing those portions. The court granted sealing for the highlighted portions of Exhibit V and for the employee identification numbers and names in Exhibit O.
Disposition
The court ordered that Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed was GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs were directed to file unsealed versions of the class-certification motion and Exhibit K on the public docket within 10 days of the order.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.