1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SCOTT GRIFFITH COLLABORATIVE Case No. 19-cv-06104-SBA (JCS)

SOLUTIONS, LLC,

19-cv-08171-SBA (JCS) 8 Plaintiff,

9 v. ORDER REGARDING 10 FALCK

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

A FID LM E I UN NIS DT ER RA ST EIV AE L MOTIONS TO

11 CORP., et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 119, 124, 127 (-06104) Defendants. 12 101, 106, 109 (-08171) FALCK USA, INC., et al., 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15

SCOTT GRIFFITH COLLABORATIVE

16 SOLUTIONS, LLC, 17 Defendant.

18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 Scott Griffith Collaborative Solutions, LLC (“SGCS”) and Falck USA, Inc. (and related 20 entities, collectively, “Falck”) each moved to file documents under seal in connection with Falck’s 21 motion for sanctions. For the reasons discussed below, Falck’s July 9, 2021 motion to file under 22 seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the remaining motions to file under seal are 23 DENIED. The parties shall file documents in the public record as discussed below. 24 While this order uses the docket numbers of filings in case number 19-cv-06104, it applies 25 equally to the substantially identical filings in case number 19-cv-08171, and the parties must file 26 public versions in that case as well. 27 II. LEGAL STANDARD 1 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to 2 overcome that presumption must generally show “compelling reasons” to do so, although a lower 3 standard of “good cause” applies to documents submitted in connection with motions no “more 4 than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.” See generally Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 5 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016). To implement that principle, this Court 6 requires administrative motions to file under seal to be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 7 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A)–(B); see generally Civ. L.R. 79-5. When a party files material 8 that another party (or non-party) has designated as confidential under a protective order, the filing 9 party must move to file that material under seal, and the designating party must file a responsive 10 declaration within four days setting forth reasons for sealing. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). 11 The Court finds that the “compelling reasons” standard applies to the documents at issue 12 here, which were filed in connection with a motion for sanctions that could have resulted in the 13 termination of SGCS’s claims. 14 III. FALCK’S JULY 9, 2021 SEALING MOTION 15 Falck moved to file a number of documents submitted in connection with its motion for 16 sanctions under seal, based solely on SGCS’s and non-party AMR’s confidentiality designations. 17 See dkt. 119; see also dkt. 121 (proof of service). SGCS filed a responsive declaration by its chief 18 operating officer Michael Coffin supporting sealing portions of those materials. Despite Falck 19 serving its motion to seal on AMR, AMR has not filed a responsive declaration. The undersigned 20 has reviewed the materials identified in Coffin’s declaration and GRANTS Falck’s motion to seal 21 only the following, which is a subset of the material SGCS sought to seal: 22 Document Sealed Portions 23 Falck’s Sanctions Motion All redactions proposed by SGCS: 7:14 24 (location), 7:15 (location), 7:24 (dollar 25 amount), 7:25 (everything after “now pays 26 SGC”), 8:4 (everything after “contractual 27 renewal”), 9:18 (dollar amount), 9:21 (entire 1 Document Sealed Portions 2 (dollar amount), and 18:12 (entire redacted 3 portion after “when SGC”) 4 Exhibit B (Coffin Deposition Transcript)1 – 144:9 (dollar amount), 145:2 (dollar amount), 5 and all duplicate instances in other exhibits2 145:10–17 (through the first word of line 17), 6 146:9–10 (dollar amounts), 146:14–15 (after 7 colon), 146:19–23 (only the name of the non- 8 AMR entity), 147:13 (same), 147:21–23 9 (same), 149:1–6 (numbers only), 149:10–16 10 (numbers and names of non-AMR entities 11 only), 150:24 (dollar amount), 151:5, 151:15– 12 152:2, 152:8–11, 152:17 (dollar amount), 13 159:1–22, 167:7–21 (dollar amounts, 14 percentages, and name of a non-Falck entity 15 only), 204:7–205:1 (dollar amounts and 16 percentage only), 217:5–16, 217:21–218:12, 17 218:21 (dollar amount), 218:24 (dollar 18 amount), 219:4 (dollar amount), 219:5–7, 19 219:8 (dollar amount), 222:9–13, 222:22– 20 223:17, 250:11 (name), 250:12 (name), 21 250:13, 250:17 (everything after “You said”), 22 1 Coffin identifies two dollar amounts on page 129 of his own deposition transcript as warranting 23 sealing, but that page is not included in Exhibit B to McGarry’s declaration, which is the only specific exhibit Coffin cites as containing his deposition transcript. The Court therefore cannot 24 readily determine if any other instance of that page that might appear in the record contains information that truly warrants sealing. If SGCS believes some other exhibit that contains that 25 page warrants sealing, it must file a new motion to seal, specifically identifying the relevant exhibit(s), before Falck files public versions. 26 2 The unfortunate need to reference duplicate material arises from Falck’s decision to include multiple copies of certain pages of deposition testimony scattered throughout the various exhibits 27 it submitted. The Court encourages Falck to refrain from this approach in the future. To the 1 Document Sealed Portions 2 250:19 (everything after “They are a”), 3 250:21, 251:1 (name), 251:5 (name), 251:17 4 (name) 5 Exhibit D (LeSage Deposition Transcript) – 160:24–161:2 (up to “Do you see that?”), 6 and all duplicate instances in other exhibits 161:5 (dollar amount), 162:10 (dollar amount), 7 162:11–12 (dollar amount), 162:14 (dollar 8 amount), 163:24 (name)3 9 Exhibit E (Lenn Deposition Transcript) – and All redactions proposed by SGCS: 107:13 10 all duplicate instances in other exhibits (dollar amount), 107:16 (dollar amount), 11 107:19 (dollar amount), 107:22 (dollar 12 amount), 107:25 (dollar amount), 108:5 (dollar 13 amount), 109:18 (“[dollar amount] per 14 [period]”); 109:21 (dollar amount); 109:24 15 (“[dollar amount] per [period]”) 16 Exhibit F (Garrett Deposition Transcript) – All redactions proposed by SGCS: 88:5–10 17 and all duplicate instances in other exhibits 18 Exhibit J Entire document 19 Exhibit 85 (Interrogatory Responses) 15:17–27, 17:1–2 (first dollar amount through 20 end of sentence) 21 Exhibit 86 Entire document 22 Exhibit 153 Entire document 23 Exhibit 168-2 Entire document 24 The motion is DENIED as to all materials at issue in Falck’s July 9, 2021 sealing motion 25 26 3 SGCS seeks to seal a passage running onto page 164 of LeSage’s deposition transcript, but since 27 that page does not appear in Exhibit D, the Court cannot readily determine whether it warrants ] that are not specifically addressed above. Falck shall file public unredacted versions of the 2 || documents not specifically addressed above, and public redacted versions of the documents sealed 3 only in part, no earlier than October 5, 2021 and no later than October 12, 2021. 4 || IV. SGCS’S SEALING MOTION 5 SGCS moved to seal portions of its opposition brief and certain documents submitted 6 || therewith based solely on confidentiality designations by AMR and non-party Robert Garrett. See 7 || dkt. 124; see also dkt. 138 (proof of service). Neither AMR nor Garrett filed a responsive 8 declaration identifying reasons to maintain these documents under seal. SGCS’s motion 1s 9 || therefore DENIED, and SGCS shall file all documents at issue unredacted in the public record no 10 earlier than October 5, 2021 and no later than October 12, 2021. Il || Vv. FALCK’S JULY 30, 2021 SEALING MOTION 12 Falck moved to seal portions of its reply brief under seal based on confidentiality 13 designations by SGCS and AMR. See dkt. 127; see also dkt. 130 (proof of service). The 14 || declaration of Bryan McGarry identifies the only material to be sealed as “[p]ortions [of the reply] 15 || that cite, quote or summarize the above,” without identifying any other documents “above.” See 16 || McGarry Decl. re Mot. to Seal Reply (dkt. 127-1) 45. Neither SGCS nor AMR filed a responsive 17 || declaration. This motion is therefore DENIED, and Falck shall file its reply brief unredacted in 18 the public record no earlier than October 5, 2021 and no later than October 12, 2021. 19 |) VI. CONCLUSION 20 For the reasons discussed above, Falck’s July 9, 2021 sealing motion is GRANTED in part 21 and DENIED in part, and the parties’ remaining sealing motions are DENIED. The parties shall 22 || file documents in the public record as discussed above no earlier than October 5, 2021 and no later 23 || than October 12, 2021. If SGCS files a renewed motion to seal portions of page 129 of Coffin’s 24 || deposition transcript and/or page 164 of LeSage’s deposition transcript, Falck shall not file any 25 documents containing those pages until the Court resolves the renewed motion. 26 IT ISSO ORDERED. 27 || Dated: September 30, 2021 CZ th C. SPERO 28 ief Magistrate Judge