Exhibit A — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 344.5)

Summary

Exhibit A, Document 344-5, filed 10/03/24 in Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB (S.D. Cal.), is a copy of an order from Makaeff v. Trump University, LLC, No. 10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG), dated June 29, 2015 and signed by Hon. Gonzalo Curiel. The order grants plaintiffs' application to file under seal portions of their opposition to a motion for decertification and Exhibit 13 to a declaration, which are unopposed. It explains that sealing in a class certification setting is judged by the good cause standard, not compelling reasons, and finds the material contains confidential commercial information whose release could harm defendants' competitive standing. The Clerk is directed to file the lodged documents under seal.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 344-5   Filed 10/03/24   PageID.7992   Page
                                   1 of 4




                        Exhibit A
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB    Document
       Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG      344-5 416
                                   Document    Filed  10/03/24
                                                   Filed 06/29/15PageID.7993
                                                                  Page 1 of 3        Page
                                     2 of 4



     1
     2
     3
     4
     5
     6
     7
     8
     9                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    10                      SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    11 TARLA MAKAEFF, et al., on Behalf of )         No. 10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG)
       Themselves and All Others Similarly )
    12 Situated,                           )         ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
                                           )         APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER
    13                        Plaintiffs,  )         SEAL PURSUANT TO LOCAL
                                           )         RULE 79.2 AND THE
    14        vs.                          )         PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED
                                           )         NOVEMBER 17, 2011
    15 TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, et al.,      )
                                           )         [ECF No. 406]
    16                        Defendants. )
                                           )
    17
    18      Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ application to file under seal certain portions of
    19 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Decertification of Class Action
    20 (“Opposition”) and Exhibit 13 to the Declaration of Rachel L. Jensen in Support of
    21 Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Decertification of Class Action
    22 (“Jensen Declaration”). (ECF No. 406.) Defendants have not opposed the
    23 application.
    24    Where a court filing contains “information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
    25 standing” or “has the potential to become a vehicle for improper purposes,” the court
    26 may deny public access to such material. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
    27 589, 598 (1978). A party requesting that the court seal materials attached to a
    28
                                         Exhibit A
                                           -1-                 10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG)
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB    Document
       Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG      344-5 416
                                   Document    Filed  10/03/24
                                                   Filed 06/29/15PageID.7994
                                                                  Page 2 of 3           Page
                                     3 of 4



     1 dispositive motion must demonstrate “compelling reasons” for doing so, while a
     2 request to seal materials attached to a non-dispositive motion is held to a lower
     3 standard, and must only make a “particularized showing of good cause.” See
     4 Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing
     5 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting
     6 that “the public has less of a need for access to court records attached to non-
     7 dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially
     8 related, to the underlying cause of action”)). Within the context of a class certification
     9 motion, “[u]nless the denial of a motion for class certification would constitute the
    10 death knell of the case, the vast majority of courts within this circuit treat motions for
    11 class certification as non-dispositive motions to which the ‘good cause’ sealing
    12 standard applies.” Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, No. 12-cv-3000-AJB-DHB, 2014 WL
    13 690410 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014) (citations omitted).
    14       Here, Plaintiffs could proceed individually, should the Court ultimately deny
    15 certification. The Court, therefore, applies the “good cause” standard.
    16       Plaintiffs seek to seal two small sections redacted from their Opposition brief and
    17 Exhibit 13 to the Jensen Declaration. This information was produced pursuant to the
    18 parties’ Protective Order (ECF No. 91) and has been designated “Confidential
    19 Information,” which includes “trade secrets or other confidential research,
    20 development, or commercial information within the meaning of FRCP 26(c)(1)(G) . . .
    21 [and] personal financial information or other information that is protected from
    22 disclosure by statute or the Constitutional right to personal privacy.” (Id. at ¶¶ 1-2.)
    23 ///
    24 ///
    25 ///
    26 ///
    27 ///
    28 ///
                                                Exhibit A
                                                  -2-                   10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG)
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB    Document
       Case 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG      344-5 416
                                   Document    Filed  10/03/24
                                                   Filed 06/29/15PageID.7995
                                                                  Page 3 of 3         Page
                                     4 of 4



     1      The Court has reviewed the proposed sealed documents and finds that they
     2 contain confidential commercial information whose public release could harm
     3 Defendants’ competitive standing. Therefore, the Court finds good cause to
     4 GRANT Plaintiffs’ application (ECF No. 406). Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is
     5 directed to FILE UNDER SEAL the documents now lodged at ECF No. 407. Once
     6 filed, these documents shall be linked to Plaintiffs’ Opposition, which is filed at ECF
     7 No. 405.
     8         IT IS SO ORDERED.
     9
    10 DATED: June 29, 2015                     ____________________________________
                                                THE HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
    11
                                                UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
    12
    13
    14
    15
    16
    17
    18
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28
                                              Exhibit A
                                                -3-                    10-cv-0940-GPC(WVG)


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.344.5.pdf

Size

288,157 bytes

SHA-256

e07eb59c67ababd017fef47de104830410262ad7a3636f7c1b32e06b0439340b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.344.5.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)