OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 158 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 161)

Full text

     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC              Document 161     Filed 02/10/23    Page 1 of 4



 1    Susan D. Fahringer, Bar No. 21567                     Gabriella Gallego, Bar No. 324226
      SFahringer@perkinscoie.com                            GGallego@perkinscoie.com
 2    Nicola C. Menaldo, pro hac vice                       PERKINS COIE LLP
 3    NMenaldo@perkinscoie.com                              3150 Porter Drive
      Erin K. Earl, pro hac vice                            Palo Alto, CA 94304-1212
 4    EEarl@perkinscoie.com                                 Telephone: 650.838.4300
      Anna M. Thompson, pro hac vice                        Facsimile: 650.838.4350
 5    AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
      PERKINS COIE LLP                                      Hayden M. Schottlaender, pro hac vice
 6    1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900                         HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com
 7    Seattle, WA 98101-3099                                PERKINS COIE LLP
      Telephone: 206.359.8000                               500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300
 8    Facsimile: 206.359.9000                               Dallas, TX 75201-3347
      Attorneys for Defendant                               Telephone: 214.965.7700
 9    Thomson Reuters Corporation                           Facsimile: 214.965.7799
10
                                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
                              NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
                                         SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
13

14
     CAT BROOKS and RASHEED                             Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC
15
     SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of
16   all others similarly situated,                     DEFENDANT THOMSON REUTERS’
                                                        STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO
17                         Plaintiffs,                  PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
                                                        MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
18          v.                                          ANOTHER PARTY’S MATERIALS
                                                        SHOULD BE SEALED (DOC. 158)
19   THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
                                                        Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
20                         Defendant.
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                              THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC            Document 161         Filed 02/10/23      Page 2 of 4



 1          Thomson Reuters submits this Statement pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5 and

 2   in response to Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Materials

 3   Should be Sealed (“Motion”) (Doc. 158). Through this Statement, Thomson Reuters seeks an

 4   order to file under seal a subset of the materials originally designated in Plaintiffs’ Motion. This

 5   Statement is supported by the Declaration of Dr. Ran Kivetz (“Kivetz Decl.”), filed concurrently.

 6                                          LEGAL STANDARD

 7          There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to court records, but “access to judicial

 8   records is not absolute.” Kamanaka v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th

 9   Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Ins., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The legal

10   standard applicable to whether a document should be sealed depends on whether the document is

11   attached to a dispositive motion or a non-dispositive motion. See id. at 1179-80. Documents

12   attached to dispositive motions—like motions for summary judgment—may be sealed only when

13   the proponent establishes “compelling reasons” for doing so. Id. But documents attached to non-

14   dispositive motions that relate to the merits only tangentially—like motions to exclude expert

15   testimony consistent with Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)—

16   may be sealed upon a lesser showing of good cause. See, e.g., Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank,

17   Inc., No. 17-CV-04810-HSG, 2020 WL 2838812, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (applying

18   compelling reasons standard to materials attached to summary judgment motion and “the lower

19   good cause standard for those documents related to the parties’ Daubert motions”). What reasons

20   are sufficient to justify sealing documents is generally “left to the sound discretion of the trial

21   court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting

22   Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978)).

23          The lesser, good cause standard applies here because the information at issue relates to

24   Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion to Exclude Defendant’s Expert Opinions on Class Certification (Doc.

25   158-3). But even if the higher, compelling reasons, standard applied, that standard is also met for

26   the same reasons discussed below and in the Kivetz Declaration.

27

28
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                       -1-      THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC          Document 161         Filed 02/10/23     Page 3 of 4



 1                                             ARGUMENT

 2          Thomson Reuters does not seek to seal any information provisionally filed under seal by

 3   Plaintiffs except for the information described in Table 1 below. The redactions proposed in

 4   Table 1 are narrowly tailored to target information about the personal finances of one of the

 5   experts retained by Thomson Reuters to provide an opinion in this action: Dr. Ran Kivetz.

 6          This personal financial information is not publicly known, and Dr. Kivetz would be

 7   harmed by its public disclosure. The resultant harm would be financial, including because

 8   Dr. Kivetz’s current and future sources of income might make decisions based on the totality of

 9   his income. The public disclosure of his private finances could also significantly impact his

10   professional opportunities with respect to present and future employment, engagement, and

11   promotion decisions. There may also be social repercussions from the public disclosure of

12   Dr. Kivetz’s personal finances to his friends, family, colleagues, and community. Finally, the

13   information is misleading, particularly because it is offered without important context. See Kivetz

14   Decl. ¶ 3. Good cause and compelling reasons thus exist to seal this information by applying the

15   redactions described in Table 1 below. See, e.g., In re Boston Herald, Inc., 321 F.3d 174, 190 (1st

16   Cir. 2003) (upholding the sealing of documents containing income of a party as “[p]ersonal

17   financial information, such as one’s income or bank account balance, is universally presumed to

18   be private, not public”); Brown v. Brown, No. CV 13-03318 SI, 2013 WL 12400041, at *1 (N.D.

19   Cal. Dec. 30, 2013) (sealing “information about defendant’s and plaintiff’s salary, stock options,

20   bonuses, consulting fees, severance, and equity interests in privately held companies” and other

21   “information about the profits, losses, income, investments, and expenses that derive from

22   financial statements and ledgers of two privately held companies co-funded by defendant and

23   plaintiff”); Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., No. C01-00988 MJJ, 2007 WL

24   3232267, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) (finding a request to seal personal financial information

25   by a nonparty met the “good cause” standard given his non-party privacy interest).

26

27

28
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                     -2-      THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC         Document 161          Filed 02/10/23      Page 4 of 4



 1                                                     Table 1

 2
                Cite                                     Portion(s) to Seal
 3
        Dkt. 158-3            FN 5: After “But while a lucrative practice (generating” and before
 4      Pls. Brief (9:27)     “of dollars a year),”
 5      Dkt. 158-4            Kivetz Dep. at 27:16-28:5
 6      Mura Decl. Ex. 1

 7      Dkt. 158-4            Kivetz Dep. at 40:5-23
        Mura Decl. Ex. 1
 8
        Dkt. 158-4            Kivetz Dep. at 41:18-20
 9      Mura Decl. Ex. 1

10

11                                           CONCLUSION

12          For the reasons discussed above and in the Declaration of Dr. Ran Kivetz supporting this

13   Statement, Thomson Reuters respectfully asks the Court to issue an order authorizing the

14   Designated Materials described in Table 1 above to remain under seal.

15

16   Dated: February 10, 2023                       PERKINS COIE LLP

17

18                                                  By: /s/ Anna Mouw Thompson
                                                         Anna Mouw Thompson
19                                                       AnnaThompson@perkinscoie.com
20
                                                    Attorneys for Defendant Thomson Reuters
21                                                  Corporation

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                   -3-       THOMSON REUTERS’ SEALING STATEMENT


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.161.0.pdf

Size

143,901 bytes

SHA-256

62905e2d2ca1987761227898e1cbf7b1bf12a85c5749b16cc4c003ee6df0cd75

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.161.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)