Preview
Mia Farber (SBN 131467)
10/2/2019
Adam Y. Siegel (SBN 238568)
JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
725 S. Figueroa, Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Mia,FarberAa,iacksonlewis.corn
Adam.Sievel@i acksonlewis.corn
Telephone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Dylan B. Carp (SBN 196846)
Scott P, Jang (SBN 260191)
Mariko Mae Ashley (SBN 311897)
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
10 San Francisco, CA 94111
Dvlan.Carn@iacksonlewis.corn
Scott.JanaCaaiacksonlewis.corn
12 Mariko.Ashlev(ritiacksontewis.corn
Telephone: (415) 394-9400
13 Facsimile: 394-9401
(415)
14
Attorneys for Defendant
15 ADFCCO USA INC.
16
SUPFRIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
17
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
18
19
20 Case No. 17-CIV-01736
RACI-IEL MONIZ, on behalf of the State of
21 California and aggrieved employees, DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO
PAOLA CORRLrA'S MOTION TO
22 Plaintiff, UNSEAL COURT RECORDS
23
V. Date: October 16, 2019
24 'I'imc: 2:00 p.m.
ADECCO IJSA, INC. and DOES 1-50, Dept.: 2, Courtroom 2E,
inclusive, [Assigned for All Purposes to
26 Hon. Marie S. Weiner]
Defendants. Complaint Filed: April 18, 2017
27 Trial Date: Vacated
I Case No. 17-CI V-01736
DEFENDANT'S OPP. TO CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT RECORDS
I 1. INTRODUCTION
2 Defendant Adecco USA, Inc. (" Defendant" ) objects to denied-intervenor Paola Correa's
3 ("Correa's") Motion to Unseal Court Records. Correa never sought the Court's permission to have
4 her Motion to Unseal set for hearing. Rather, the Court sct the October 16, 2019 hearing date, for
5 the limited purpose of hearing Plaintiff Rachel Moniz's ("Plaintifl") Renewed Motion for
6 Approval of PAGA Settlement. Although Correa sought the Court's permission to have hci
7 Motion for Attorney I'ces and Incentive Payment also heard on October 16, 2019, she did not seek
8 the same permission with respect to this Motion to Unseal. I'or this reason alone, the Court should
9 deny Con ea's Motion to Unseal Court Records.
10 Further, Defendant seeks to preserve the confidentiality of certain proprietary business
11 records and workforce statistics, previously filed conditionally under seal in connection with
12 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication (" Motion" ) pursuant to the Parties'tipulated
13 Protective Order. 'I'he documents that Defendant seeks to maintain under seal contain business
14 information that would prejudice Defendant's economic interests if the record does not remain
15 sealed. Defendant's potential and actual competitors would have access to information that relates
16 to Defendant's core operations and competitive advantage. The revelation of these matters would
17 interfere with Defendant's ability to compete effectively in the marketplace. Moreover, and most
18 importantly, none of the information that Defendant proposes to keep under seal is relevant or
19 necessary to Plaintiff s Motion, nor is it the basis of adjudication. Thus — to the extent the Court
20 entertains Correa's Motion to Unseal Court Records Dcfcndant seeks an order sealing specific
21 limited portions of certain exhibits that Plaintiff attached to her Motion, as further detailed below.
22 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
23
A. The Parties'rotective Order
On February 23, 2018, the Court entcrcd the Parties'tipulation and Protective Ordei
Regarding Confidential Information (" Protective Order" ) to protect trade secrets and confidential
business or financial information, including personal financial information.
///
2 Case No. 17-CI V-01736
DEI'ENDANT'S OPF. TO CORRFA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT RFCORDS
B.,PlaintifPs Motion for Summary Adjudication and Defendant's Proposed
Red actions
On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Summary Adjudication, which filed certain
portions of documents conditionally under seal as follows;
~ Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Separate Statement—
Plaintiffs MPA and Separate Statement in support of her Motion includes
redactions of direct quotes from Defendant's Employment Agreements, Fxhibits 5-
10. Defendant does not object to the unsealing of these records.
~ Exhibit I — Defendant's Responses and Objections to Plain1ifl" s Second Set of
Special Interrogatories. Defendant does not object to the unsealing of this record.
10 Exhibit Plaintiff" s
~ 2 — February 1, 2017 PAGA Notice to the LWDA. Defendant
docs not object to the unsealing of this record.
12 ~ Exhibit 3 — Notice of Submission to LWDA and Mailing to Defendant. Defendant
13
does not object to the unsealing of this record.
14 ~ Exhibit 4 — Defendant's Amended Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First
15
Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant proposes the following
16
redactions to its Response to Request for Production No. 1: Page 9, Lines 3-6 (i.e.,
17
subparts (a)-(c)); Page 9, Lines 9-12 (i.e,, subparts (a)-(c)); Page 9, Lines 16-19
(i,e.,subparts (a)-(c)); Page 9, Lines 22-25 (i.e.,subparts (a)-(c)); Page 9, Linc 28
to Page 10, Line 3 (i.e.,subparts (a)-(c)); and Page 10, Lines 6-9 (i.e., subparts (a)-
20 -which includes information
(c)) proprietary regarding the applicability of certain
21
agreements to Colleagues and Associates, but Defendant does not object to the
22 unsealing of the remainder of this record.
23 e Exhibit 5 — Confidential and Proprietary Employmcnt Agreement. Defendant does
24 not object to the unsealing of Paragraph 7 on ADFCCO-000028, but proposes
25 rcdactions to the entire remainder of Lxhibit 5 which was not relied on by Plaintiff
26 in hcr Motion.
27 e Exhibit Employment Agreement
6 —
signed by Plaintiff Rachel Moniz on
28 November 9, 2011. Defendant does not object to the unsealing of this record,
3 Case No. 17-CIV-01736
DEPENDANT'S OPP. TO CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT IXECORDS
~ Exhibit 7 — Confidential and Proprietary Employment Agreement.
Defendant does not object to the unsealing of Paragraph 3 on ADECCO-000004.
but proposes redactions to the entire remainder of Exhibit 7, which was not relied
on by Plaintiff in her Motion.
~ Exhibit 8 —
Confidential and Proprietary Employment Agreement.
Defendant does not object to thc unsealing of Paragraph 4 on ADECCO-000023.
but proposes redactions to thc entire remainder of Exhibit 8, which was not relied
on by Plaintiff in her Motion.
~ Exhibit 9 — Confidential and Proprietary Employment Agreement.
10 Defendant does not object to the unsealing of Paragraph 4 on ADECCO-000009-
10, but proposes redactions to the entire remainder of Exhibit 9, which was noi
12 relied on by Plaintiff in her Motion.
13 a Exhibit 10 — Confidential and Proprietary Employment Agreement.
14 Defendant docs not object to the unsealing of Paragraph 5 on ADECCO-000017
15 and Paragraph 5 on ADECCO-000019, but proposes redactions to the entire
16 remainder of Exhibit 10, which was not relied on by Plaintiff in her Motion.
17 ~ Exhibit 11 — Defendant Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of
Requests for Production. Defendant does not object to the unsealing of this record.
19 a Exhibit 12 — Defendant's December 7, 2017 Letter 13ricf Regarding Plaintiff's
20 Discovery Requests. Defendant does not object to the unsealing of this record to
21 the extent relied on by Plaintiff in her Motion.
22 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
23
A. Correa Never Sought Permission to File Her Motion to Unseal.
The Court should decline to hear Correa's Motion to Unseal, because Correa never sought
25 the Court's permission to lile a Motion to Unseal or to have the hearing date set on October 16.
26 Rather, after hearing various post-judgment motions on August 26, the Court ordered a subsequent
27 hearing date on October 16 for the limited of entertaining Plaintiff's
purpose renewed Motion foi
28 Approval of PAGA Settlement. Correa later sought the Court's permission to have her Motion foi
Case No. 17-CIV-0173e
DEFENDANT'S OPP. TO CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT RECORDS
Attorney Fees and Incentive Payment also heard on October 16, which the Court allowed. But
Correa did not seek permission at any time to file or have a hearing date sct for hcr Motion to
Unseal Court Records. Despite lacking the Court's permission, Correa filed hcr Motion to Unseal
on September 20, and noticed the hearing date for October 16.
B. The Court Has Authority to Seal Its Record.
Pursuant to California Rule of Court 2.551(h)(1), any sealed record must not he unsealed
exceot on o&Tier of the Court. Upon a motion to unseal records, the Court must expressly find
facts that establish:
(I) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the
10
record;
(2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record;
12
(3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the
13
record is not sealed;
14
(4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and
15
(5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest.
16
(CRC 2.551(h)(4); CRC 2.550(d)(1-5); McGuan v. Bndovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182
17
Cal.App.4th 974, 988; see also NBC Subsidia& y (KNBC-I"'V), Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal. 4th
18
1178, 1217-18 (hereinafter NBC).) A court's decision to seal court records is reviewed for abuse
19
of discretion. (In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 299-300.)
20
Although California courts recognize a general righ1 to inspect and copy public records
21
and documents including judicial records, the Supreme Court has found this right is limited: "[i]t
22
is uncontested... that the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute. (Nixon v
23
IVarner Con&mc'ns, Inc. (1978) 435 U.S. 589, 598.) Further, "the First Amendment does not
24
compel public access to discovery materials that are neither used at trial nor submitted as the
25
basis for adjudication." (NBC, 20 Cal.4th at 1208, n.25.) "[I]rrelevant discovery materials or
26
27 materials as to which evidentiary objections are sustained are not 'submitted as a basis for
28 adjudication'nd are thus not within the ambit or thc constitutional righ1 of access and,
concomitantly, not subject to the sealed records rules." (Ovc»stock.corn, inc. v, Goldman Sachs
5 Case No. 17-CIV-01736
DEPENDANT'S OPP. TO CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT RECORDS
Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th 471, 492 (hereinafter Overstock. corn).) This is because the
public has no interest in gaining access to information that is irrelevant or inadmissible. (Id. at
497, n.14.)
Moreover, every court has supervisory power over itsown records and files, and access
has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes." (btixon,
435 U.S. at 598.) While there is no justification for sealing records that contain facts already
7
available to the public, if the information sought to bc scaled is private, confidential and/or
8
proprietary, and disclosure of that inlormation overrides the public right to review, sealing the
9
record is appropriate. (See H.B. Fuller Co v,Doe (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 879, 898.)
10
C. There is No Public Interest in the Proposed Redacted Materials
11
To the limited extent that Defendant proposes redactions to the documents at issue, the
12
information was not relied upon by Plaintiff in her Motion. As such, the public has little,if any,
13
legitimate interest in those materials and information. "As every court to consider the question
14
has observed, the right of access applies only to discovery materials that are relevant to the matter s
15
before the trial court." (See Overstock.corn, 231 Cal. App. 4th at 497 tcmphasis added; citations
16
omitted]; see also b/BC, 20 Cal.4th at 1208, n.25 [right of access applies to information used "as
17
the basis of adjudication"].)
18
19
Adecco's Overriding Interest In Its Proprietary Rusiness Information
Overcomes Any Right of Public Access.
20
To the extent that the public has any interest in the proposed redacted materials (again,
21
there is none), Defendant has an overriding vested interest in protecting the business information
22
contained in (I) itsResponse to Request for Production No. I (i.e.,date of application for the
23
Employment Agreements; and (2) the Employment Agrccmcnts, with the exception of Plaintiff" s
24
Employment Agreement (which has already been disclosed by Plaintiffl and the provisions in the
25
agreements that are at issue in this case. Imbedded and intertwined with such information is
26
Defendant's strategy for attracting competent talent and successfully competing with its direct
27
competitors. If this information is unsealed or otherwise unredacted, Defendant's economic
28
6 Case No. 17-CIV-01736
DEFENDANT'S OPI'. TO CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COUI&T RECORDS
interests would be prejudiced because competitors would have access to Defendant's business
strategies, information, and documents.
E. The Proposed Sealing ls Narrowly Tailored and No Less Restrictive Means
Exist.
Defendant's proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to the issues raised by Plaintiff in this
action, including her Complaint as well as the issues raised in her Motion. To stress again, allol
thc information actually relied upon by Plaintiff in her Motion will be made publicly available
should the Court adopt Defendant's proposed sealing. (See Oversxock corn, 231 Cal. App. 4th at
497 [" As every court to consider the question has observed, the right of access applies only to
10 discovery materials that are relevant to the matters before the trial court."] [citations omitted]; see
also N13C, 20 Cal.4th at 1208, n.25 [right of access applies to information used "as the basis ol
12 adjudication"]; CRC 2.550 Meanwhile, the
(a)(3).) proposed sealing also protects all ol
13 Defendant's business information. Defendant is not aware of any less restrictive means ol
14
protecting its overriding interest in its business information that is otherwise irrelevant to the
15
public's understanding of Plaintiff's Motion.
16
IV. CONCLUSION
17
For thc foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court issue an order
18
adopting its proposed redactions.
19
20
DATED; October 2, 2019 JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
21
22
By:
23
Mif Farber
24 Ad+ Y. Si gel
.
Dylan B. C
25 Scott P. Jang
Mariko Mae Ashley
Attorneys for Defendant
27 ADECCO USA, INC.
28
7 Case No. I7-CIV-01736
DEPENDANT'S OPP. TO CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT RECORDS
PROOI OF SERVICE
I, Lauretta Adams, declare that I am employed with the law firm of Jackson Lewis P.C.,
whose address is 50 California Street, 9th I"loor, San Francisco, California, 94111-4615; I am
over the age of eighteen (18) years and am not a party to this action.
On October 2, 2019, I served true and correct copies of the following:
DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PAOLA CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL
COURT RECORDS
in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof, enclosed is a sealed envelope, addressed
as follows:
10 David M. Baiter Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor State of
Patricia M. Kelly California Labor & Workforce Development
Michael L. Smith
Department of Industrial Relations Agency
12 1515 Clay Street, Suite 2206
Oakland, CA 94612
13 Teh (510) 285 1781
mlsmith(Rdir.ca.uov
14
Carolyn Cottrell Attorneys for Plaintiff
15 Kyle Bates RACI IEL MONIZ
SCHNEIDER WAI LACF. COTTRELL
16 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
Emeryville, CA 94608
17 Telephone: (415) 421-7100
Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
18 ccottrell@schneiderwaliace.corn
kbates schneiderwal1 ace.corn
19
Chris Baker Attorneys for Aggrieved and
20 Deborah Schwartz Injured Parties PAOLA CORREA and
BAI(ER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ, P.C, BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ, P.C.
21 One California Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
22 'I'elephone: (415) 433-1064
I acsimile: (415) 366-2525
23 cbaker@bakerlo.corn
dschwartzAa.bakerlp.corn
24
[] BY MAII,: United States Postal Service by placing a scaled envelope with the postage
25 thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date, following ordinary
business practices, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California. [( ) Courtesy
26 copy by e-niail.]
27 [ ] 13Y OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelope, addressed as shown above, to be
delivered to the above address via overnight delivery service.
28
PROOF OF SERVICF. Case No. 17-CIV-01736
BY DESIGNATED ELECTRONIC FILING SLRVICE; Ihereby certify that the above-
referenced document(s) were served electronically on the parties listed above at their most
recent known e-mail address or e-mail of record by submitting an electronic version of the
document(s) to One Legal at eFilinaQa,oneleual.corn.
3
BY HAND DFLIVFRY: I caused a sealed envelope as addressed above containing true
4 and correct copy(les) of the above-listed document(s).
5
I declare under penalty of perjury under thc laws of the State of California that the above
6
is true and correct.
7
Executed on October 2, 2019, at San Francisco, California.
j--fk.a'RE@ii
"-
gjdPa'~~
Lauretta Adams
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
25
26
Case No. 17 CIV 01736
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
Mia Farber (SBN 131467) 10/2/2019 Adam Y. Siegel (SBN 238568) JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 725 S. Figueroa, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Mia,FarberAa,iacksonlewis.corn Adam.Sievel@i acksonlewis.corn Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Dylan B. Carp (SBN 196846) Scott P, Jang (SBN 260191) Mariko Mae Ashley (SBN 311897) JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor 10 San Francisco, CA 94111 Dvlan.Carn@iacksonlewis.corn Scott.JanaCaaiacksonlewis.corn 12 Mariko.Ashlev(ritiacksontewis.corn Telephone: (415) 394-9400 13 Facsimile: 394-9401 (415) 14 Attorneys for Defendant 15 ADFCCO USA INC. 16 SUPFRIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 17 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 18 19 20 Case No. 17-CIV-01736 RACI-IEL MONIZ, on behalf of the State of 21 California and aggrieved employees, DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PAOLA CORRLrA'S MOTION TO 22 Plaintiff, UNSEAL COURT RECORDS 23 V. Date: October 16, 2019 24 'I'imc: 2:00 p.m. ADECCO IJSA, INC. and DOES 1-50, Dept.: 2, Courtroom 2E, inclusive, [Assigned for All Purposes to 26 Hon. Marie S. Weiner] Defendants. Complaint Filed: April 18, 2017 27 Trial Date: Vacated I Case No. 17-CI V-01736 DEFENDANT'S OPP. TO CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT RECORDS I 1. INTRODUCTION 2 Defendant Adecco USA, Inc. (" Defendant" ) objects to denied-intervenor Paola Correa's 3 ("Correa's") Motion to Unseal Court Records. Correa never sought the Court's permission to have 4 her Motion to Unseal set for hearing. Rather, the Court sct the October 16, 2019 hearing date, for 5 the limited purpose of hearing Plaintiff Rachel Moniz's ("Plaintifl") Renewed Motion for 6 Approval of PAGA Settlement. Although Correa sought the Court's permission to have hci 7 Motion for Attorney I'ces and Incentive Payment also heard on October 16, 2019, she did not seek 8 the same permission with respect to this Motion to Unseal. I'or this reason alone, the Court should 9 deny Con ea's Motion to Unseal Court Records. 10 Further, Defendant seeks to preserve the confidentiality of certain proprietary business 11 records and workforce statistics, previously filed conditionally under seal in connection with 12 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Adjudication (" Motion" ) pursuant to the Parties'tipulated 13 Protective Order. 'I'he documents that Defendant seeks to maintain under seal contain business 14 information that would prejudice Defendant's economic interests if the record does not remain 15 sealed. Defendant's potential and actual competitors would have access to information that relates 16 to Defendant's core operations and competitive advantage. The revelation of these matters would 17 interfere with Defendant's ability to compete effectively in the marketplace. Moreover, and most 18 importantly, none of the information that Defendant proposes to keep under seal is relevant or 19 necessary to Plaintiff s Motion, nor is it the basis of adjudication. Thus — to the extent the Court 20 entertains Correa's Motion to Unseal Court Records Dcfcndant seeks an order sealing specific 21 limited portions of certain exhibits that Plaintiff attached to her Motion, as further detailed below. 22 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 23 A. The Parties'rotective Order On February 23, 2018, the Court entcrcd the Parties'tipulation and Protective Ordei Regarding Confidential Information (" Protective Order" ) to protect trade secrets and confidential business or financial information, including personal financial information. /// 2 Case No. 17-CI V-01736 DEI'ENDANT'S OPF. TO CORRFA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT RFCORDS B.,PlaintifPs Motion for Summary Adjudication and Defendant's Proposed Red actions On May 11, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Summary Adjudication, which filed certain portions of documents conditionally under seal as follows; ~ Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Separate Statement— Plaintiffs MPA and Separate Statement in support of her Motion includes redactions of direct quotes from Defendant's Employment Agreements, Fxhibits 5- 10. Defendant does not object to the unsealing of these records. ~ Exhibit I — Defendant's Responses and Objections to Plain1ifl" s Second Set of Special Interrogatories. Defendant does not object to the unsealing of this record. 10 Exhibit Plaintiff" s ~ 2 — February 1, 2017 PAGA Notice to the LWDA. Defendant docs not object to the unsealing of this record. 12 ~ Exhibit 3 — Notice of Submission to LWDA and Mailing to Defendant. Defendant 13 does not object to the unsealing of this record. 14 ~ Exhibit 4 — Defendant's Amended Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First 15 Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant proposes the following 16 redactions to its Response to Request for Production No. 1: Page 9, Lines 3-6 (i.e., 17 subparts (a)-(c)); Page 9, Lines 9-12 (i.e,, subparts (a)-(c)); Page 9, Lines 16-19 (i,e.,subparts (a)-(c)); Page 9, Lines 22-25 (i.e.,subparts (a)-(c)); Page 9, Linc 28 to Page 10, Line 3 (i.e.,subparts (a)-(c)); and Page 10, Lines 6-9 (i.e., subparts (a)- 20 -which includes information (c)) proprietary regarding the applicability of certain 21 agreements to Colleagues and Associates, but Defendant does not object to the 22 unsealing of the remainder of this record. 23 e Exhibit 5 — Confidential and Proprietary Employmcnt Agreement. Defendant does 24 not object to the unsealing of Paragraph 7 on ADFCCO-000028, but proposes 25 rcdactions to the entire remainder of Lxhibit 5 which was not relied on by Plaintiff 26 in hcr Motion. 27 e Exhibit Employment Agreement 6 — signed by Plaintiff Rachel Moniz on 28 November 9, 2011. Defendant does not object to the unsealing of this record, 3 Case No. 17-CIV-01736 DEPENDANT'S OPP. TO CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT IXECORDS ~ Exhibit 7 — Confidential and Proprietary Employment Agreement. Defendant does not object to the unsealing of Paragraph 3 on ADECCO-000004. but proposes redactions to the entire remainder of Exhibit 7, which was not relied on by Plaintiff in her Motion. ~ Exhibit 8 — Confidential and Proprietary Employment Agreement. Defendant does not object to thc unsealing of Paragraph 4 on ADECCO-000023. but proposes redactions to thc entire remainder of Exhibit 8, which was not relied on by Plaintiff in her Motion. ~ Exhibit 9 — Confidential and Proprietary Employment Agreement. 10 Defendant does not object to the unsealing of Paragraph 4 on ADECCO-000009- 10, but proposes redactions to the entire remainder of Exhibit 9, which was noi 12 relied on by Plaintiff in her Motion. 13 a Exhibit 10 — Confidential and Proprietary Employment Agreement. 14 Defendant docs not object to the unsealing of Paragraph 5 on ADECCO-000017 15 and Paragraph 5 on ADECCO-000019, but proposes redactions to the entire 16 remainder of Exhibit 10, which was not relied on by Plaintiff in her Motion. 17 ~ Exhibit 11 — Defendant Responses and Objections to Plaintiff's First Set of Requests for Production. Defendant does not object to the unsealing of this record. 19 a Exhibit 12 — Defendant's December 7, 2017 Letter 13ricf Regarding Plaintiff's 20 Discovery Requests. Defendant does not object to the unsealing of this record to 21 the extent relied on by Plaintiff in her Motion. 22 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 23 A. Correa Never Sought Permission to File Her Motion to Unseal. The Court should decline to hear Correa's Motion to Unseal, because Correa never sought 25 the Court's permission to lile a Motion to Unseal or to have the hearing date set on October 16. 26 Rather, after hearing various post-judgment motions on August 26, the Court ordered a subsequent 27 hearing date on October 16 for the limited of entertaining Plaintiff's purpose renewed Motion foi 28 Approval of PAGA Settlement. Correa later sought the Court's permission to have her Motion foi Case No. 17-CIV-0173e DEFENDANT'S OPP. TO CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT RECORDS Attorney Fees and Incentive Payment also heard on October 16, which the Court allowed. But Correa did not seek permission at any time to file or have a hearing date sct for hcr Motion to Unseal Court Records. Despite lacking the Court's permission, Correa filed hcr Motion to Unseal on September 20, and noticed the hearing date for October 16. B. The Court Has Authority to Seal Its Record. Pursuant to California Rule of Court 2.551(h)(1), any sealed record must not he unsealed exceot on o&Tier of the Court. Upon a motion to unseal records, the Court must expressly find facts that establish: (I) There exists an overriding interest that overcomes the right of public access to the 10 record; (2) The overriding interest supports sealing the record; 12 (3) A substantial probability exists that the overriding interest will be prejudiced if the 13 record is not sealed; 14 (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored; and 15 (5) No less restrictive means exist to achieve the overriding interest. 16 (CRC 2.551(h)(4); CRC 2.550(d)(1-5); McGuan v. Bndovascular Technologies, Inc. (2010) 182 17 Cal.App.4th 974, 988; see also NBC Subsidia& y (KNBC-I"'V), Inc. v.Sup. Ct. (1999) 20 Cal. 4th 18 1178, 1217-18 (hereinafter NBC).) A court's decision to seal court records is reviewed for abuse 19 of discretion. (In re Providian Credit Card Cases (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 292, 299-300.) 20 Although California courts recognize a general righ1 to inspect and copy public records 21 and documents including judicial records, the Supreme Court has found this right is limited: "[i]t 22 is uncontested... that the right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute. (Nixon v 23 IVarner Con&mc'ns, Inc. (1978) 435 U.S. 589, 598.) Further, "the First Amendment does not 24 compel public access to discovery materials that are neither used at trial nor submitted as the 25 basis for adjudication." (NBC, 20 Cal.4th at 1208, n.25.) "[I]rrelevant discovery materials or 26 27 materials as to which evidentiary objections are sustained are not 'submitted as a basis for 28 adjudication'nd are thus not within the ambit or thc constitutional righ1 of access and, concomitantly, not subject to the sealed records rules." (Ovc»stock.corn, inc. v, Goldman Sachs 5 Case No. 17-CIV-01736 DEPENDANT'S OPP. TO CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT RECORDS Group, Inc. (2014) 231 Cal. App. 4th 471, 492 (hereinafter Overstock. corn).) This is because the public has no interest in gaining access to information that is irrelevant or inadmissible. (Id. at 497, n.14.) Moreover, every court has supervisory power over itsown records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes." (btixon, 435 U.S. at 598.) While there is no justification for sealing records that contain facts already 7 available to the public, if the information sought to bc scaled is private, confidential and/or 8 proprietary, and disclosure of that inlormation overrides the public right to review, sealing the 9 record is appropriate. (See H.B. Fuller Co v,Doe (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 879, 898.) 10 C. There is No Public Interest in the Proposed Redacted Materials 11 To the limited extent that Defendant proposes redactions to the documents at issue, the 12 information was not relied upon by Plaintiff in her Motion. As such, the public has little,if any, 13 legitimate interest in those materials and information. "As every court to consider the question 14 has observed, the right of access applies only to discovery materials that are relevant to the matter s 15 before the trial court." (See Overstock.corn, 231 Cal. App. 4th at 497 tcmphasis added; citations 16 omitted]; see also b/BC, 20 Cal.4th at 1208, n.25 [right of access applies to information used "as 17 the basis of adjudication"].) 18 19 Adecco's Overriding Interest In Its Proprietary Rusiness Information Overcomes Any Right of Public Access. 20 To the extent that the public has any interest in the proposed redacted materials (again, 21 there is none), Defendant has an overriding vested interest in protecting the business information 22 contained in (I) itsResponse to Request for Production No. I (i.e.,date of application for the 23 Employment Agreements; and (2) the Employment Agrccmcnts, with the exception of Plaintiff" s 24 Employment Agreement (which has already been disclosed by Plaintiffl and the provisions in the 25 agreements that are at issue in this case. Imbedded and intertwined with such information is 26 Defendant's strategy for attracting competent talent and successfully competing with its direct 27 competitors. If this information is unsealed or otherwise unredacted, Defendant's economic 28 6 Case No. 17-CIV-01736 DEFENDANT'S OPI'. TO CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COUI&T RECORDS interests would be prejudiced because competitors would have access to Defendant's business strategies, information, and documents. E. The Proposed Sealing ls Narrowly Tailored and No Less Restrictive Means Exist. Defendant's proposed sealing is narrowly tailored to the issues raised by Plaintiff in this action, including her Complaint as well as the issues raised in her Motion. To stress again, allol thc information actually relied upon by Plaintiff in her Motion will be made publicly available should the Court adopt Defendant's proposed sealing. (See Oversxock corn, 231 Cal. App. 4th at 497 [" As every court to consider the question has observed, the right of access applies only to 10 discovery materials that are relevant to the matters before the trial court."] [citations omitted]; see also N13C, 20 Cal.4th at 1208, n.25 [right of access applies to information used "as the basis ol 12 adjudication"]; CRC 2.550 Meanwhile, the (a)(3).) proposed sealing also protects all ol 13 Defendant's business information. Defendant is not aware of any less restrictive means ol 14 protecting its overriding interest in its business information that is otherwise irrelevant to the 15 public's understanding of Plaintiff's Motion. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 For thc foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court issue an order 18 adopting its proposed redactions. 19 20 DATED; October 2, 2019 JACKSON LEWIS, P.C. 21 22 By: 23 Mif Farber 24 Ad+ Y. Si gel . Dylan B. C 25 Scott P. Jang Mariko Mae Ashley Attorneys for Defendant 27 ADECCO USA, INC. 28 7 Case No. I7-CIV-01736 DEPENDANT'S OPP. TO CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT RECORDS PROOI OF SERVICE I, Lauretta Adams, declare that I am employed with the law firm of Jackson Lewis P.C., whose address is 50 California Street, 9th I"loor, San Francisco, California, 94111-4615; I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and am not a party to this action. On October 2, 2019, I served true and correct copies of the following: DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO PAOLA CORREA'S MOTION TO UNSEAL COURT RECORDS in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof, enclosed is a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: 10 David M. Baiter Attorneys for Proposed Intervenor State of Patricia M. Kelly California Labor & Workforce Development Michael L. Smith Department of Industrial Relations Agency 12 1515 Clay Street, Suite 2206 Oakland, CA 94612 13 Teh (510) 285 1781 mlsmith(Rdir.ca.uov 14 Carolyn Cottrell Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 Kyle Bates RACI IEL MONIZ SCHNEIDER WAI LACF. COTTRELL 16 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 17 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 18 ccottrell@schneiderwaliace.corn kbates schneiderwal1 ace.corn 19 Chris Baker Attorneys for Aggrieved and 20 Deborah Schwartz Injured Parties PAOLA CORREA and BAI(ER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ, P.C, BAKER CURTIS & SCHWARTZ, P.C. 21 One California Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 22 'I'elephone: (415) 433-1064 I acsimile: (415) 366-2525 23 cbaker@bakerlo.corn dschwartzAa.bakerlp.corn 24 [] BY MAII,: United States Postal Service by placing a scaled envelope with the postage 25 thereon fully prepaid, placed for collection and mailing on this date, following ordinary business practices, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California. [( ) Courtesy 26 copy by e-niail.] 27 [ ] 13Y OVERNIGHT DELIVERY: I caused such envelope, addressed as shown above, to be delivered to the above address via overnight delivery service. 28 PROOF OF SERVICF. Case No. 17-CIV-01736 BY DESIGNATED ELECTRONIC FILING SLRVICE; Ihereby certify that the above- referenced document(s) were served electronically on the parties listed above at their most recent known e-mail address or e-mail of record by submitting an electronic version of the document(s) to One Legal at eFilinaQa,oneleual.corn. 3 BY HAND DFLIVFRY: I caused a sealed envelope as addressed above containing true 4 and correct copy(les) of the above-listed document(s). 5 I declare under penalty of perjury under thc laws of the State of California that the above 6 is true and correct. 7 Executed on October 2, 2019, at San Francisco, California. j--fk.a'RE@ii "- gjdPa'~~ Lauretta Adams 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 25 26 Case No. 17 CIV 01736 PROOF OF SERVICE