Opinion
No. C 07-4485 CW
03-28-2013
ARMANDO PLASCENCIA; and MELANIA PLASCENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LENDING 1ST MORTGAGE; LENDING 1ST MORTGAGE, LLC; EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING
IN PART EMC'S
MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 362)
Defendant EMC Mortgage LLC, formerly known as EMC Mortgage Corporation, moves to file under seal the declaration of LeAnn Pedersen Pope offered in support of EMC's omnibus brief regarding its motion to decertify the class, its motion for summary judgment and in opposition to Plaintiffs Armando and Melania Plascencia's motion for partial summary judgment and its separate motions to exclude the testimony of Leonard Lyons and Jonathan Macey.
In EMC's declaration in support of its motion to seal, it represents that it has filed separately in the public record the declaration of Susan Miller Overbey, to which it has attached redacted versions of the same exhibits attached to the Pope declaration. Overbey Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Seal ¶ 7. See Docket No. 359. Pursuant to the Court's August 27, 2012 order, EMC has also provided the Court with a copy of the Pope declaration in which it has indicated which portions of the exhibits it seeks to seal. The Court addresses below only the portions of the Pope declaration that are not already publicly available in the corresponding attachment to the Overbey declaration.
EMC's filings are connected to a dispositive motion. To establish that the documents are sealable, EMC "must overcome a strong presumption of access by showing that 'compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.'" Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). This cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to file each document under seal. Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).
In its declaration in support of its motion to seal, EMC represents that certain documents contain confidential borrower information regarding Plaintiffs and the putative class members, including their loan numbers, addresses, Social Security numbers, credits scores and details regarding their loans that are protected from disclosure under federal and state law. Overbey Decl. ¶ 6. Having reviewed the documents at issue, the Court finds EMC has established that this constitutes compelling reasons to seal the following documents and excerpts and GRANTS EMC's motion as to these items:
1. Exhibit A, Deposition Ex. 16 (highlighted portions only);
2. Exhibit M (highlighted portions only);
3. Exhibit N (highlighted portions only);
4. Exhibit O, Deposition Ex. 4 (highlighted portion of page EMC/PLAS 01558 only);
5. Exhibit R (loan numbers in highlighted portions of deposition transcript only);
6. Exhibit R, Deposition Exs. 1, 7 and 8 (highlighted portions only);
7. Exhibit R, Deposition Ex. 6 (highlighted portion of page EMC/AMP 0116 only); and
8. Exhibit S (highlighted portions only).
In its declaration in support of its motion to seal, EMC represents that certain documents contain nonpublic information about the terms of the contractual agreements under which EMC purchased loans from Lending 1st and other originating lenders. Overbey Decl. ¶ 5. It states that public disclosure of this information would likely cause it harm by allowing other loan originators to gain an advantage over EMC and its related entities when negotiating the terms and pricing of mortgage loan purchase agreements with EMC and related entities and also by allowing its competitors to gain an advantage over EMC when they negotiate with loan originators. Id. Having reviewed the documents at issue, the Court finds EMC has established that this constitutes compelling reasons to seal the following documents and excerpts and GRANTS EMC's motion as to these items:
1. Exhibit A, Deposition Ex. 19 (all);
2. Exhibit B, Deposition Exs. 4 and 5 (all);
3. Exhibit O, Deposition Ex. 4 (pages EMC/PLAS 01559-73) (all); and
4. Exhibit O, Deposition Ex. 6 (all).
EMC shall file under seal the documents identified in the above two lists within four days of the date of this Order.
The Court finds EMC has not established compelling reasons to seal the documents and excerpts listed below. The Court notes that some of these documents have already been filed in the public record of this case in an identical or substantially similar form or that the information that EMC seeks to seal has already been revealed publicly in other filings. The Court also finds that EMC has not provided compelling reasons to seal its organization structure and has instead made conclusory statements that this is kept confidential and that it invested time into developing the structure, without explaining in sufficient detail how it would suffer harm if its structure were publicly revealed. EMC has also not offered sufficient reason to justify sealing any portion of the deposition transcript of Leonard Lyons, other than the loan numbers to which the testimony refers. Accordingly, EMC's motion to seal is DENIED as to these documents and excerpts and EMC is directed to file these items in the public record within four days of the date of this Order:
1. Exhibit B, Ex. 2;
2. Exhibit C, Ex. 14 (see Docket No. 238-1);
3. Exhibit O, Deposition Ex. 3 (see Docket No. 62);
4. Exhibit O, Deposition Ex. 4 (pages EMC/PLAS 015574-75);
5. Exhibit R (highlighted portions of deposition transcript, other than loan numbers);
6. Exhibit R, Deposition Exs. 2, 3, 4, and 5 (see Docket No. 62); and
7. Exhibit R, Deposition Ex. 6 (page EMC/AMP 0114) (see Docket No. 62).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge