Opinion
19-cv-02217-BAS-MDD
03-01-2022
DAVID HASTINGS, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
(ECF NO. 124)
HON. CYNTHIA BASHANT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed two applications to maintain the following documents under seal: attorney Gregory Sogoyan's declaration and exhibits filed in support of Plaintiff's Reply brief for his motion to amend (Apps. to Seal, ECF Nos. 106) and attorney Dara Tabesh's unredacted declaration and related exhibits in support of Plaintiff's opposition to the motion for summary judgment (App. to Seal, ECF No. 111). The exhibits requested to be sealed can be grouped into two categories: excerpts from Defendant Ford Motor Company's 2013 Warranty Policy & Procedure Manual (“Warranty Manual”) (Exs. A-C to Sogoyan Decl., ECF No. 107; Exs. A, C-E to Tabesh Decl., ECF No. 112) and Ford's Warranty Detail reports for Plaintiff's repair visits that took place on or after August 1, 2018 (Ex. B to Tabesh Decl., ECF No. 112).
On February 15, 2022, the Court issued an order denying without prejudice Plaintiff's applications to seal. (Order, ECF No. 120.) The Court found that the compelling reasons standard governed and counsel's declarations did not satisfy the standard. (Id.) The Court required the parties to meet and confer to narrow the scope of documents to be sealed, in compliance with Section 5.B of the Court's Standing Order for Civil Cases (“Standing Order”) and ordered Ford to file a response that establishes the compelling reasons to maintain the applicable documents under seal. (Id. at 5-6; Standing Order § 5.B.) The Court advised that if no response is filed to the Court's satisfaction, the Court may order that the documents be filed in the public record.
Ford filed a response to the Court's Order, arguing that compelling reasons support maintaining the excerpts from its Warranty Manual under seal because the excerpts constitute confidential business information and trade secrets that cannot be disclosed without damaging Ford's competitive standing. (Ford's Resp., ECF No. 124.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,' a ‘strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent-indeed, particularly because they are independent-to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.'” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096-98. When the underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the lesser, “good cause” standard applies. Id.; see Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that the “good cause” standard imposes a lower burden than the “compelling reasons” standard). Under either standard, “an order sealing the documents must be narrowly drawn to seal only those portions of the record that, upon a balancing of the relevant interests, ought to be sealed.” Acad. of Motion Picture Arts & Scis. v. GoDaddy.com, Inc., No. CV 10-03738-AB (CWX), 2015 WL 12698301, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015) (collecting cases).
Under this Court's Standing Order, “[a] party seeking a sealing order must provide the Court with: (1) a specific description of particular documents or categories of documents to be protected; and (2) declaration(s) showing a compelling reason or good cause to protect those documents from disclosure.” Hon. Cynthia Bashant's Standing Order for Civil Cases (“Standing Order”) § 5.B. “The standard for filing documents under seal will be strictly applied.” Id. Because “[t]here is a presumptive right of public access to court records based upon common law and first amendment grounds, ” “[t]he fact that both sides agree to seal a document or that a stipulated protective order was issued is insufficient cause for sealing.” See Id. § 5.A.
III. ANALYSIS
A. Warranty Manual
Ford argues that compelling reasons support maintaining under seal the four pages of excerpts from the Warranty Manual because they contain Ford's confidential business policies and procedures governing warranty claims. Compelling reasons may exist if sealing is required to prevent documents from being used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. “[A] trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of ‘a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.'” GPNE Corp. v. Apple Inc., 2015 WL 4381244, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2015) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 269(c)(1)(G)); see also Bauer Bros. LLC v. Nike, Inc., No. 09cv500-WQH-BGS, 2012 WL 1899838, *2 (S.D. Cal. May 24, 2012) (finding compelling reasons to seal because “public disclosure of [the defendant]'s confidential business materials . . . could result in improper use by business competitors seeking to replicate [the defendant]'s business practices and circumvent the considerable time and resources necessary in product and marketing development”).
Ford attaches a declaration from Jacob Doss, who has worked as Ford's Zone Manager, Field Service Engineer, and Service Engineer, and, as relevant to the Warranty Manual, has been a Manager in Ford's Customer Relationship Center since 2012. (Doss Decl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 124-1.) Doss states that because of his experience and job duties at Ford, he is “familiar with various types of documents that Ford generates in its normal course of business, including warranty manuals and why such documents and information are considered by Ford to be confidential, ” as well as “the steps Ford takes to maintain their confidentiality or restrict public disclosure of this information.” (Id. ¶ 3.) Doss describes each document that Ford seeks to maintain under seal as follows:
• “FORD-HASTINGS001765 outlines for Ford's dealers the sequence in which to apply various coverages in the event that multiple coverages apply, as well as the various applicable deductibles” (id. ¶ 8);
• “FORD-HASTINGS001877 provides a detailed checklist for its dealers for handling warranty repairs under Ford's California Emissions Control Systems Defect Warranty” (id. ¶ 9);
• FORD-HASTINGS001928 “explains how a dealership should handle Field Service Actions, specifically, recalls and customer satisfaction programs, how to consult Ford's databases for information regarding applicable Field Service Actions, and the process dealerships should follow in the event of a recall” (id. ¶ 10); and
• FORD-HASTINGS001880 “sets out guidelines clarifying and defining coverage information for Ford's emissions control systems components” (id. ¶ 11).
According to Doss, Ford has developed these policies and procedures over many years through investing time and resources and has maintained the confidentiality of the documents. (Id. ¶¶ 12-13.) It is Doss's belief that if the documents are made public, Ford's competitors would be able to “replicate Ford's warranty policies and procedures, which are an essential component of Ford's business relations with its dealers, with minimal effort and expenditure.” (Id. ¶ 13.) For this reason, Doss states that maintaining the documents under seal in this action would preserve Ford's competitive standing and institutional knowledge. (Id.)
The Court finds that Ford has established compelling reasons to maintain under seal the following excerpts from its Warranty Manual: FORD-HASTINGS001765, FORD-HASTINGS001877, FORD-HASTINGS001928, and FORD-HASTINGS001880.
B. Warranty Detail Reports
Ford's response does not address any reasons to maintain under seal the copies of Ford's Warranty Detail Reports attached as Exhibit B to the Tabesh Declaration. Because no response has been filed as to that exhibit, the Court orders Plaintiff to file the exhibit in the public record.
IV. CONCLUSION
The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to accept and MAINTAIN UNDER SEAL the lodged documents (ECF Nos. 107, 112). The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to file on the public record Exhibit B to the Tabesh Declaration (ECF No. 112 at 9-44) on or before March 7, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.