1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EDD KING, et al., Case No. 15-cv-00313-DMR

8 Plaintiffs,

MOTIONS TO SEAL

9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 302, 346, 347, 364, 370, 394 10 NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on July 7, 2023. [Docket No. 309.] In 14 connection with this motion, the parties filed six administrative sealing motions. [Docket Nos. 15 302, 346, 347, 364, 370, 394.] The court addresses the motions to seal in connection with the 16 court’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion for class certification without prejudice to renewal. 17 [Docket No. 422.] 18 In assessing whether documents may be filed under seal, there is “a strong presumption in 19 favor of access.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The 20 Ninth Circuit established standards governing requests to seal in Kamakana v. City & County of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006). In accordance with the strong public policy 22 favoring access to court records, “[a] party seeking to seal a judicial record . . . bears the burden of 23 overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. at 1178. 24 “Under this stringent standard, a court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason 25 and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Ctr. 26 for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096–97 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 27 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). Those reasons must “outweigh the general history of access and 1 process.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 2 (9th Cir. 1995)). The court must “conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests of the public 3 and the party who seeks to keep” the records secret. Id. at 1179. 4 The Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception to the presumption of access to judicial 5 records” for “court records attached only to non-dispositive motions.” Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d 6 at 1135). The court reasoned that “the public has less of a need for access to court records 7 attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often ‘unrelated, or only 8 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.’” Id. (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). “A 9 ‘good cause’ showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non- 10 dispositive motions.” Id. at 1180 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). The Ninth Circuit has 11 distinguished “dispositive” and “non-dispositive” motions. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097- 12 98. These terms are not “mechanical classifications” and “public access [to judicial records] will 13 turn on whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Id. at 1097, 14 1101. Therefore, a party must satisfy the more demanding “compelling reasons” standard to seal a 15 motion that is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Id. at 1101-02. 16 Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is “more than tangentially related to the merits of” 17 the case. Accordingly, the “compelling reasons” standard applies to the pending administrative 18 motions to seal. 19 In general, compelling reasons exist to seal materials that are “sources of business 20 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 21 1097 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)). Such documents can 22 include “trade secrets, marketing strategies, product development plans, detailed product-specific 23 financial information, customer information, internal reports and other such materials.” In re 24 Google Location History Litig., 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Furthermore, 25 “confidential business information in the form of license agreements, financial terms, details of 26 confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies satisfies the “compelling reasons” 27 standard.” Baird v. BlackRock Inst. Tr. Co., 403 F. Supp. 3d 765, 792 (N.D. Cal. 2019); see also 1 14, 2019) (granting motion to seal confidential agreements between a party and a third-party). 2 I. PLAINTIFFS’ SEALING MOTIONS 3 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5(f), Plaintiffs filed four administrative motions 4 to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed. [Docket Nos. 302, 364, 370, 394.] 5 As the designating parties under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f), Defendants filed two statements in 6 support. [Docket Nos. 310, 376.] Defendants seek to seal only some of the materials identified by 7 Plaintiffs, arguing that the materials contain confidential information pertaining to their business 8 practices and email communications, competitively sensitive information regarding Defendants’ 9 training practices and affinity products, and information from Defendants’ confidential 10 policyholder databases. Plaintiffs do not oppose Defendants’ sealing requests. 11 A. Docket Nos. 302 and 394 12 Docket Numbers 302 and 394 are sealing motions regarding the exact same material. 13 Defendants filed one statement in support of the motions. [Docket No. 310 (Jesse Contreras Decl., 14 July 10, 2023).] The court makes the following rulings for both motions. 15 Document Text, Portions, or Basis for Confidentiality 16 Document to be Sealed 17 Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Page 2, lines 25 – 26. GRANTED. The court did not rely on of Points and Authorities this information in its order. See Lesnik 18 in Support of Motion for v. Eisenmann SE, No. 16-cv-01120- Class Certification LHK, 2021 WL 2093062, at *2 (N.D. 19 ("Class Certification Cal. Feb. 12, 2021) (granting motion to Brief") seal where court did not rely on any of 20 the information the parties sought to seal 21 and “therefore, the public interest in access to this information is minimal”). 22 Class Certification Brief Page 8, lines 5 – 7, and GRANTED as to lines 5 – 7. The court lines 17 – 26. did not rely on this information. 23 DENIED as to lines 17 – 26. The discussion in Plaintiff’s brief is a 24 generalized characterization and/or does 25 not reveal specific confidential information. 26 Class Certification Brief Page 9, lines 5 - 10. DENIED. The discussion in Plaintiff’s brief is a generalized characterization 27 and/or does not reveal specific Class Certification Brief Page 13, lines 4 - 7. GRANTED. The court did not rely on 1 this information. 2 Class Certification Brief Page 15, lines 16 – 21; GRANTED. The discussion in Page 15, lines 22 – 24 Plaintiff’s brief reveals detailed 3 and Footnote 9. information about Defendants’ confidential business practices. See 4 Nicolosi Distrib. v. Finishmaster, Inc., No. 18-cv-03587-BLF, 2018 U.S. Dist. 5 LEXIS 147515, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6 28, 2018) (finding compelling reasons to seal “proprietary and confidential 7 business information, including potential trade secrets and business 8 practices, such as product rates and purchase requirements”). 9 Class Certification Brief Page 16, lines 3 – 5, and DENIED as to lines 3-5. The discussion 10 lines 13 – 19. is a generalized characterization and/or does not reveal specific confidential 11 information. GRANTED as to lines 13 – 19. The 12 discussion reveals detailed information about Defendants’ confidential business 13 practices. 14 Declaration of Scott Page 3, lines 13 – 15. DENIED. Defendants have no objection Brown Support of to unsealing this text. 15 Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification 16 (“Brown Decl.”) 17 Brown Decl. Page 4, lines 4 – 5, DENIED. Defendants have no objection to unsealing this text. 18 Brown Decl. Page 4, lines 10 – 27. DENIED. Defendants have no objection to unsealing this text. 19 Brown Decl. Page 5, lines 13 – Page DENIED. Defendants have no objection 6, line 6. to unsealing this text. 20 Brown Decl. Page 6, lines 13 – 19. DENIED. Defendants have no objection 21 to unsealing this text. Brown Decl. Page 7, line 5 – Page 8, DENIED. Defendants have no objection 22 line 3. to unsealing this text. Brown Decl. Page 8, lines 5 – 6. DENIED. Defendants have no objection 23 to unsealing this text. 24 Brown Decl. Page 8, lines 16 – 22. GRANTED. The court did not rely on this information in its order. In addition, 25 the discussion reveals Defendants’ confidential business information. 26 Brown Decl. Page 8, lines 25 – 26. GRANTED. The court did not rely on this information in its order. 27 Brown Decl. Page 9, lines 2 – 3. GRANTED. The court did not rely on 1 this information in its order. In addition, 2 the discussion reveals Defendants’ confidential business information. 3 Brown Decl. Page 9, lines 22 – 24, DENIED. The discussion is a lines 26 – 27. generalized characterization and/or does 4 not reveal specific confidential information. 5 Brown Decl. Page 10, lines 6 – 8. GRANTED. The court did not rely on 6 this information in its order. Brown Decl. Page 12, line 10 – Page DENIED. Defendants have no objection 7 13, line 2. to unsealing this text. Brown Decl. Page 13, lines 16 – 21. DENIED. Defendants have no objection 8 to unsealing this Exhibit. 9 Brown Decl. Exhibit D DENIED. Defendants have no objection to unsealing this Exhibit. 10 Brown Decl. Exhibit E DENIED. Defendants have no objection to unsealing this Exhibit. 11 Deposition Exhibit 109 Whole document. GRANTED. Document contains information that “would harm a 12 designating party’s competitive standing 13 and divulge terms of confidential contracts or contract negotiations.” 14 DeMartini v. Microsoft Corp., No. 22- CV-08991-JSC, 2023 WL 4205770, at 15 *2 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2023). Deposition Exhibit 110 Whole document. GRANTED. Document contains 16 confidential contract information. 17 Deposition Exhibit 111 Whole document. GRANTED. Document contains confidential contract information. 18 Deposition Exhibit 154 Whole document. GRANTED. The court did not rely on this information in its order. 19 B. Docket No. 364 20 Plaintiffs filed this administrative sealing motion, and Defendants filed a statement in 21 support. [Docket No. 376 (Marc Jacobs Decl., Nov. 2, 2023).] The court rules as follows. 22

23 Document Text, Portions, or Basis for Confidentiality 24 Document to be Sealed Plaintiffs’ Reply To The Page 8, lines 8-11. DENIED. The discussion is a 25 National General generalized characterization and/or does Defendants’ Opposition not reveal specific confidential 26 To Motion For Class information. 27 Certification (“Reply to NG Defendants”) Plaintiffs’ Reply to Page 1, lines 6-10. DENIED. The email exchange 1 Sequoia’s Opposition to referenced in the brief does not reveal 2 Motion for Class specific confidential information. Certification (“Reply to 3 Sequoia”) Reply to Sequoia Page 2, lines 24-25. DENIED. Defendants have no objection 4 to unsealing this text. Reply to Sequoia Page 3, lines 5-8. DENIED. The email exchange 5 referenced in the brief does not reveal 6 specific confidential information. Reply to Sequoia Page 4, lines 15-23. GRANTED. The discussion of the 7 documents is a generalized characterization and/or does not reveal 8 specific confidential information. 9 Reply to Sequoia Page 5, lines 6-10. DENIED. The discussion of the documents and email exchange is a 10 generalized characterization and/or does not reveal specific confidential 11 information. Reply to Sequoia Page 8, line 27. DENIED. Defendants have no objection 12 to unsealing this text. 13 Reply to Sequoia Page 9, lines 2-3, 7-13, DENIED. Defendants have no objection and 20-23. to unsealing this text. 14 Exhibit 4 to Declaration Page 5, paragraph 15.c. DENIED. Defendants have no objection of Shelby Serig: Expert to unsealing this text. 15 Report of Scott Brown (10/13/2023) (“Expert 16 Report of Scott Brown 17 (10/13/2023)”) Expert Report of Scott Page 7-8, paragraph 21. GRANTED. The court did not rely on 18 Brown (10/13/2023) this information in its order. In addition, the discussion reveals Defendants’ 19 confidential business information. 20 Expert Report of Scott Page 8, portions of GRANTED. The court did not rely on Brown (10/13/2023) paragraph 22. this information in its order. In addition, 21 the discussion reveals Defendants’ confidential business information. 22 Expert Report of Scott Page 10, paragraph 31. DENIED. Defendants have no objection Brown (10/13/2023) to unsealing this text. 23 Expert Report of Scott Page 11, chart after GRANTED. The court did not rely on 24 Brown (10/13/2023) paragraph 34. this information in its order. In addition, the discussion reveals Defendants’ 25 confidential business information. Expert Report of Scott Page 12, lines 2-6 of DENIED. Defendants have no objection 26 Brown (10/13/2023) paragraph 37. to unsealing this text. 27 Expert Report of Scott Page 14, chart after DENIED. Defendants have no objection Brown (10/13/2023) paragraph 42. to unsealing this text. Expert Report of Scott Page 15, chart after GRANTED. The court did not rely on 1 Brown (10/13/2023) paragraph 44. this information in its order. In addition, 2 the discussion reveals Defendants’ confidential business information. 3 Expert Report of Scott Page 16, lines 3-6 of DENIED. Defendants have no objection Brown (10/13/2023) paragraph 47, and chart to unsealing this text. 4 on page 17. Expert Report of Scott Page 17, lines 4-6 of DENIED. Defendants have no objection 5 Brown (10/13/2023) paragraph 48. to unsealing this text. 6 Expert Report of Scott Page 18, last three lines DENIED. Defendants have no objection Brown (10/13/2023) of paragraph 49, and to unsealing this text. 7 chart following. Expert Report of Scott Page 19-20, lines 4-7 GRANTED. The court did not rely on 8 Brown (10/13/2023) and portions of lines 10- this information in its order. In addition, 9 12 of paragraph 54. the discussion reveals Defendants’ confidential business information. 10 Expert Report of Scott Page 20, limited GRANTED. The court did not rely on Brown (10/13/2023) portions of paragraph this information in its order. In addition, 11 55. the discussion reveals Defendants’ confidential business information. 12 Expert Report of Scott Page 20, lines 4-7 of DENIED. Defendants have no objection 13 Brown (10/13/2023) paragraph 56. to unsealing this Exhibit. Exhibit A to Expert Page 4, lines 5-7 of DENIED. Defendants have no objection 14 Report of Scott Brown paragraph 9. to unsealing this Exhibit. (10/13/2023) 15 Exhibit A to Expert Page 5, last three lines of GRANTED. The court did not rely on Report of Scott Brown paragraph 11. this information in its order. In addition, 16 (10/13/2023) the discussion reveals Defendants’ 17 confidential business information. Exhibit A to Expert Page 6, lines 2-6 of DENIED. Defendants have no objection 18 Report of Scott Brown paragraph 14. to unsealing this Exhibit. (10/13/2023) 19 Exhibit A to Expert Page 8, chart following DENIED. Defendants have no objection 20 Report of Scott Brown paragraph 19. to unsealing this Exhibit. (10/13/2023) 21 Exhibit A to Expert Page 8, lines 3-6 of DENIED. Defendants have no objection Report of Scott Brown paragraph 20. to unsealing this Exhibit. 22 (10/13/2023) Exhibit A to Expert Page 9, paragraph 22. GRANTED. The discussion reveals 23 Report of Scott Brown Defendants’ confidential business 24 (10/13/2023) information. Exhibit A to Expert Page 9, lines 5-9 of GRANTED. The discussion reveals 25 Report of Scott Brown paragraph 23. Defendants’ confidential business (10/13/2023) information. 26 Exhibit A to Expert Page 11, second DENIED. Defendants have no objection 27 Report of Scott Brown paragraph of paragraph to unsealing this Exhibit. (10/13/2023) 28. Exhibit A to Expert Page 13, lines 3-6 of DENIED. Defendants have no objection 1 Report of Scott Brown paragraph 36. to unsealing this Exhibit. 2 (10/13/2023) Exhibit A to Expert Page 13, lines 2-6 and 8- DENIED. Defendants have no objection 3 Report of Scott Brown 9 of paragraph 37. to unsealing this Exhibit. (10/13/2023) 4 Exhibit A to Expert Page 14, lines 4-6 of GRANTED. The court did not rely on Report of Scott Brown paragraph 40. this information in its order. 5 (10/13/2023) 6 Exhibit E to Expert The exhibit in its GRANTED. The discussion reveals Report of Scott Brown entirety. Defendants’ confidential business 7 (10/13/2023) information. Exhibit F to Expert The exhibit in its DENIED. Defendants have no objection 8 Report of Scott Brown entirety. to unsealing this Exhibit. 9 (10/13/2023) Exhibit G to Expert The exhibit in its GRANTED. The court did not rely on 10 Report of Scott Brown entirety. this information in its order. (10/13/2023) 11 Exhibit 163: The exhibit in its DENIED. The email exchange does not DEFS0128568 entirety. reveal specific confidential information. 12 C. Docket No. 370 13 Plaintiffs also filed an administrative sealing motion regarding excerpts from the 14 deposition of Paul Braithewaite taken on October 10, 2023. [Docket No. 370-1 (Michael Ram 15 Decl., Oct. 27, 2023) ¶ 5.] Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), Defendants, as the designating 16 parties, had seven days to file a statement and/or declaration if they wished to seek sealing of the 17 materials. Nothing has been filed. Accordingly, the provisionally sealed material is unsealed. 18

II. DEFENDANTS’ SEALING MOTIONS

19 Defendants filed one administrative motion to consider whether another party’s material 20 should be sealed on September 11, 2023. [Docket No. 346.] Sequoia Insurance Company 21 (“Sequoia”), a previous defendant in this case which was dismissed on December 22, 2023,1 was 22 the designating party under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f) and had seven days to file a statement and/or 23 declaration if it wished to seek sealing of the materials. Nothing was filed. Accordingly, the 24 provisionally sealed material is unsealed. 25 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Defendants also filed a motion to seal its own 26 material. [Docket No. 347.] Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion. 27 1 Defendants seek to redact Exhibits 4 through 14 of Rakesh Patel’s September 8, 2023 2 declaration because the exhibits contain Plaintiffs’ personally identifiable information, specifically 3 their home addresses. [Docket Nos. 348-5 through 348-15.] The court finds that compelling 4 reasons exist to redact the addresses, particularly here where the court does not rely on that 5 information in its order. See Nursing Homes Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 2007 WL 3232267, at 6 *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) (“The Ninth Circuit has found that compelling reasons exist to keep 7 personal information confidential to protect an individual’s privacy interest and to prevent 8 exposure to harm or identity theft.”). The court grants this motion and orders Defendants to re-file 9 the Patel Declaration Exhibits 4-14, redacting only the portions of the documents with Plaintiffs’ 10 addresses. 11 Defendants also seek to seal portions of Torry Conroy’s declaration and Exhibits 18 12 through 20 of the declaration. [Docket Nos. 348-21 (Torry Conroy Decl., Sept. 8, 2023); 348-22 13 through 348-24.] The court grants the motion to seal Exhibits 18-20 because they contain 14 information that “would harm a designating party’s competitive standing and divulge terms of 15 confidential contracts or contract negotiations.” DeMartini v. Microsoft Corp., No. 22-CV-08991- 16 JSC, 2023 WL 4205770, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2023). The court grants the motion to seal 17 portions of the Conroy Declaration except for paragraphs 11-14, referencing the March 30, 2009 18 Broker Agreement entered into between Omni Safe and Defendants. The court relied on this 19 information in its order, and the information is at a high level of generality which does not reveal 20 specific confidential business practices. Defendants shall re-file the Conroy Declaration with 21 paragraphs 11-14 unredacted. 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 The parties are directed to re-file versions of the above materials pursuant to this order by 24 October 22, 2024. This order terminates Docket Nos. 302, 346, 347, 364, 370, and 394. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: October 8, 2024 27 ______________________________________