Tan v. Konnektive Rewards, LLC
| Decision Date | 02 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | 20-cv-1082-LL-DDL |
| Parties | LEANNE TAN, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KONNEKTIVE REWARDS, LLC, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS TO SEAL [DKT. NOS 258, 264]
Before the Court are two Motions for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (the “Motions to Seal”) by Plaintiff Leanne Tan (“Plaintiff”). Dkt. Nos. 258, 264. The Konnektive Defendants and the Quick Box Defendants (collectively, “Defendants”) join. See Dkt. No. 267. For the reasons stated below, the Motions to Seal are DENIED.
In this putative consumer fraud class action, Plaintiff alleges Defendants and others “scammed” her by enticing her to redeem an offer for a free trial of skin care products, only to charge her, unwittingly, for the full price of the products and ongoing installments of the same. See generally Dkt. No. 89. In Plaintiff's case, the alleged scam began with a text message that appeared to be from Amazon. See id. Plaintiff alleges she was duped by means of the text message into signing up to receive a sample of skin cream for only the price of shipping - less than $5.00 - but that ultimately Defendants charged her more than $170.00 for products she neither wanted nor consented to buy. See id. Plaintiff has moved to certify a class of similarly aggrieved consumers, supported by her deposition testimony about the text message she received. See Dkt. Nos. 229, 229-4 (under seal).
On January 4, 2023, the Konnektive Defendants moved for evidentiary sanctions against Plaintiff, reporting that Plaintiff had spoliated her cell phone and with it, the “fake text message” she allegedly received. Dkt. No. 254 (the “Spoliation Motion”). The Quick Box Defendants joined the motion. Dkt. No. 255. Defendants seek an order precluding Plaintiff from testifying, whether by declaration or at trial, about the contents of the text messages that were allegedly lost. Dkt. No. 260 at 6. Plaintiff opposed the Spoliation Motion, Dkt. No. 259, and concurrently moved to seal Exhibits 1 and 4 to her opposition, as well as portions of her opposition brief that quote from or reveal the contents of those exhibits. Dkt. No. 258.
On February 2, 2023, Plaintiff moved for terminating sanctions, alleging that Quick Box's CEO, Stephen Adele, “perjured himself” in declarations before the District Court, undermining the judicial process and causing "severe[] prejudice” to Plaintiff (the “Perjury Motion”). Dkt. No. 263. Plaintiff asks the Court to enter default judgment against Adele and Quick Box, LLC. See id. Plaintiff concurrently moved to file 18 exhibits to the Perjury Motion under seal.[1] Dkt. No. 264.
“[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, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,' 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) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “‘The presumption of access 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) (citation omitted).
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. Where the underlying motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits,” there must be “compelling reasons” to overcome the public's right of access. Id. at 1096-98. Where the underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, materials may be sealed only upon a showing of “good cause.” Id. Under either standard, limited redactions are to be favored over the wholesale sealing of documents. See Whitecryption Corp. v. Arxan Techs., Inc., No. 15-cv-00754-WHO, 2016 WL7852471, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2016) ().
Before proceeding with its analysis, the Court takes the opportunity to address parties' briefing - or lack thereof - on the Motions to Seal. Although each of Plaintiff's filings was styled as a “motion for leave to file documents under seal,” Plaintiff does not, in fact, want permission to file any documents under seal. See Dkt. Nos. 258, 264. Instead, Plaintiff states in each of her single-page filings that none of the materials at issue qualify for sealing, but that pursuant to the operative protective order, she was required to file them under seal. See id. Plaintiff seeks “relief from the requirements of the Protective Order.” Id. “[T]o avoid repetitive briefing,” Plaintiff incorporated by reference a previously filed motion to seal and stated that “for the same reasons articulated in that motion, the materials in this motion . . . should not be required to be filed under seal.” Dkt. No. 258 at 2 (referencing Dkt. No. 230); Dkt. No. 264 at 2 (same). While this approach may have spared Plaintiff time and effort, it did not have the same benefit for the Court. Plaintiff is reminded that in seeking relief from the Court, it is her responsibility to provide the Court with the legal and factual bases in support thereof. See CivLR 7.1.f. The Court is not obligated to scour the docket for similar motions Plaintiff (or any other party) may have filed and graft the parties' arguments into the present dispute, regardless of any factual or legal overlap. The Court cautions Plaintiff -and all parties - that going forward, motions will be decided on the moving papers only, and the failure to provide the Court with complete briefing may result in denial of the requested relief. See CivLR 7.1.d.
As to Defendants, their brief in support of sealing is replete with the rote incantation that the documents concern “confidential” and “proprietary” business information, without further analysis and unsupported by a declaration or other evidence. See generally Dkt. No. 267. Such “perfunctory submission[s]” do not assist the Court, who must then “decide [the] complex issue of sealing with no adversarial briefing” from those litigants who are in the best position to explain why their information meets the Ninth Circuit's standard for sealing. See SiteLock LLC v. GoDaddy.com LLC, No. CV-19-02746-PHX-DWL, 2021 WL 1574660, at *14 (D. Ariz. Apr. 22, 2021) (); see also AngioScore, Inc. v. TriReme Med., Inc., No. 12-CV-3393 YGR, 2014 WL 2886246, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 25, 2014) (). The Court takes the matter of sealing judicial records seriously and expects the parties to do the same by way of complete and thorough briefing.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Court has endeavored to evaluate whether the documents before it are sealable. Having reviewed the documents, and considering the governing Ninth Circuit standards for sealing, the Court finds they are not.
In determining which standard should govern a request to seal judicial records, the Ninth Circuit cautions against adopting a “bright line rule” that would employ the “compelling reasons” standard only where the underlying motion is “technically dispositive.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101-02. Here, the Court finds that the Spoliation Motion is “‘more than tangentially related to the merits of [the] case,'” id. at 1102, because the relief requested by Defendants would, if granted, impose restrictions on the evidence Plaintiff can present both for purposes of class certification and at trial. See Edifecs, Inc. v. Welltok, Inc., No. C18-1086JLR, 2019 WL 5618822, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2019) (); see also Charles v. Target Corp., No. 20-CV-07854-HSG, 2022 WL 3205047, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2022) (). The Court further finds that the Perjury Motion, indisputably a dispositive motion, is also more than tangentially related to the merits. Therefore, the Court evaluates the Motions to Seal under the “compelling reasons” standard. To meet that standard, the party seeking sealing must make a showing, supported by specific facts, that the records at issue could “'become a vehicle for improper purposes'” if not kept confidential. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citation omitted). The Court must then “balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to seal judicial records.” In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Prac. Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted).
In support of their request to seal documents related to the Spoliation Motion, Defendants conclusorily assert that Exhibits 1 and 4 contain ...
To continue reading
Request your trial