Opinion
2:21-cv-00845-KJM-CKD
09-30-2022
Ronald Ortega, Plaintiff, v. Chick-fil-A, Inc., Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Ronald Ortega brings this proposed class action against defendant Chick-fil-A, Inc. See generally First Am. Compl. (FAC), ECF No. 31. Ortega seeks to file an unredacted Second Amended Complaint (SAC), which, Chick-fil-A claims, contains “commercially sensitive and propriety information.” Req. to Seal at 1. Accordingly, Chick-fil-A requests the unredacted SAC be sealed. Id. Because Chick-fil-A has not shown compelling reasons for the unredacted SAC to be sealed, the request is denied (ECF No. 67).
Because Ortega's request to seal his opposition is predicated on the court's granting Chick-fil-A's request, see Notice of Req. to Seal, ECF No. 72, Ortega's request is denied as moot.
“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnotes omitted). Although that right is not absolute, “‘a strong presumption in favor of access' is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). This presumption “is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent-indeed, particularly because they are independent-to have a measure of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.'” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).
For these reasons, courts grant requests to seal records in civil cases in only limited circumstances, such as to protect against “gratification of] private spite or promot[ion of] public scandal” or to preclude court dockets from being “reservoirs of libelous statements” or “sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 597 (citations omitted). When a party moves to seal a record, the court determines whether the underlying filing is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. If so, then a party seeking to seal the record must satisfy the “stringent” compelling-reasons standard. Id. at 1096.
Chick-fil-A asks to seal a complaint. “[A] request to seal all or part of a complaint must clearly meet the ‘compelling reasons' standard.” Mack v. Dearborn Nat'lLife Ins. Co., No. 14-1665, 2014 WL 12572866, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2014) (citation omitted). Applying this standard, “a court may seal records only when it finds ‘a compelling reason and articulate[s] the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture,'” and “then ‘conscientiously balance[s] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.'” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1096-97 (first alteration in original) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). The compelling-reasons standard applies even if the contents were previously filed under seal or are covered by a generalized protective order. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136.
Chick-fil-A seeks to withhold two types of information from the public: “(1) sources of confidential business information that if publicized could harm Chick-fil-A's competitive standing; and (2) internal business materials relating to its communications with franchisees, employees, and customers about their personal experiences with the Chick-fil-A brand and name.” Req. at 3. It explains that these citations are confidential under the Stipulated Protective Order. Id. But, as explained below, Chick-fil-A does not provide compelling reasons to overcome the “strong presumption in favor of access” for either type of information. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation omitted).
First, Chick-fil-A seeks to prevent the disclosure of nine statements quoted from documents produced in discovery. See Req. at 5-11. Each concerns Chick-fil-A's alleged business plan to improve delivery sales by increasing delivery menu prices while decreasing delivery fees. They discuss the alleged plan, its benefits and drawbacks, and findings from consumer research. In support of sealing, Chick-fil-A offers the same generalized argument for each of the nine quotations: they reveal internal e-mail discussions about “consumer testing and research findings,” which cost “considerable resources and time,” and as a result, their disclosure would allow competitors to reap the rewards of Chick-fil-A's investment. Req. at 5. Broad claims that Chick-fil-A “expended considerable resources and time” and that competitors will “reap” the benefits ring hollow. Id. The company's plan to reduce delivery fees and increase delivery menu prices is disclosed on the first page of the complaint. See FAC ¶¶ 2-6. Chick-fil-A does not explain how these quotations reveal information other than that which is already disclosed in the complaint. And although some of the quoted language justifies Chick-fil-A's plans, it is unclear how a competitor could profit from information and explanations attributed to unnamed employees. The closest call is the first challenged quotation, which references information on average check amounts taking account of price inflation as compared to competitors' prices. Req. at 5. But Chick-fil-A does not explain how any competitor could unfairly reap the benefit of this information.
Second, Chick-fil-A seeks to seal four quotations from non-parties, including Chick-fil-A's employees, franchisees, and customers. See Req. at 11-13. Chick-fil-A claims that sealing these quotations is necessary to preserve franchisees' and customers' privacy. That argument would be more persuasive if the plaintiff had not already anonymized the quoted language. See id. at 12-13 (referring to “Customer,” “CFA employee,” and bracketing “a different employee”).
Because the quoted language reveals no private or identifying information, Chick-fil-A has not shown compelling reasons to seal.
The court denies Chick-fil-A's request to seal. Ortega is directed to file the unredacted Second Amended Complaint by October 7, 2022.
This order resolves ECF Nos. 67, 72.
IT IS SO ORDERED.