Statement re 240 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (In… — Brooks v. Thomson Reuters Corporation (Dkt. 242)

Summary

Defendant Thomson Reuters' Statement in Support of Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Seal, Document 242, filed 09/03/24 in Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC, Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, two pages. Under Local Rule 7-11(b), Thomson Reuters addresses Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 240). It states that, as Plaintiffs note, there are compelling reasons to seal the exact opt-out threshold to prevent third parties from using that figure to obstruct the settlement, and that the request is narrowly tailored because only the threshold itself is sealed. A footnote states that Thomson Reuters endorses Plaintiffs' proposed order at Doc. 240-3, and the statement is signed /s/ Hayden Schottlaender.

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-cv-01418-EMC          Document 242     Filed 09/03/24    Page 1 of 2



 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 SUPPORT OF
17                         Plaintiffs,              PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE
                                                    MOTION TO SEAL
18          v.
19   THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION,
20                         Defendant.
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                               THOMSON REUTERS’ STATEMENT ISO
                                                                PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL
     Case 3:21-cv-01418-EMC            Document 242         Filed 09/03/24      Page 2 of 2



 1            Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11(b), Defendant Thomson Reuters submits this Statement in

 2   Support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 240), filed on August 29,

 3   2024.

 4            As Plaintiffs note, there are compelling reasons to seal the exact opt-out threshold to

 5   prevent third parties from using that figure to obstruct the settlement. See, e.g., In re Lyft Inc. Sec.

 6   Litg., No. 19-cv-02690-HSG, 2023 WL 2960006, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2023) (sealing opt-out

 7   threshold); In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 15-MD-02617-LHK, 2017 WL 9614789, at

 8   *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2017) (same). Plaintiffs’ request is appropriately narrowly tailored

 9   because they request to seal only the threshold itself. See id. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal

10   should be granted. 1

11

12   Dated: September 3, 2024                          PERKINS COIE LLP

13

14                                                     By: /s/ Hayden Schottlaender
                                                            Hayden Schottlaender
15
                                                            HSchottlaender@perkinscoie.com
16
                                                       Attorneys for Defendant Thomson Reuters
17                                                     Corporation
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28   1
         Thomson Reuters endorses Plaintiffs’ proposed order filed at Doc. 240-3.
     Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC                       -1-            THOMSON REUTERS’ STATEMENT ISO
                                                                       PLAINTIFFS’ ADMIN. MOT. TO SEAL


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.242.0.pdf

Size

144,928 bytes

SHA-256

5104e2bd46ea839e47e45aaec453a20947966d826d47ca4ab2bd7755bb5103cd

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.374304.242.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)