District Judge Angel Kelley: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Before the Court is parties’ Joint Motion to File Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Summary Judgment under Seal. [Dkt. 76]. The parties seek to seal the motion for class certification and motion for summary judgment (with accompanying exhibits) because certain exhibits (or parts thereof) contain parties’ and third parties’ confidential information. [Id]. While the parties agree to seal both the motions, they dispute whether the compensation details of Defendant’s employees in putative class should be sealed or not. [Id. ¶ 7]. With regards to employees' compensation details, Plaintiff argues it belongs to the employees, and Defendant does not have any confidentiality interests therein. Meanwhile, Defendant argues its employees' compensation details are competitive information, and disclosure thereof would harm its competitive standing in biddings for rail services contracts. Because the parties have not shown compelling interests to seal the motions in full, and Defendant shows good cause to seal its employees’ compensation details, the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART without any prejudice to refiling.
This action involves Plaintiff's challenge, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, to Defendant's payment of wages to its employees. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148, by paying its employees more than six days after termination of the pay period. The parties have completed discovery. Before entering discovery, parties submitted, and the Court approved, a protective order providing, in its relevant parts, the standards and methods to seal any document or part(s) thereof. [Dkt. 48]. Pursuant to the protective order, any party seeking to seal a document must file a motion “showing that the information is privileged or protectable under the law. The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of the confidential or privileged material.” [Dkt. 48 ¶ 14]. As a result, the parties now jointly seek leave to file under seal, "Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification (and all accompanying papers, including Defendant’s Opposition and any exhibits) and Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (and all accompanying papers, including Plaintiff’s Opposition and any exhibits).” [Dkt. 76 at 1]. The parties claim to “have identified throughout the course of the litigation specific documents and testimony they seek to have sealed... [accordingly] believe that the requested filings should be submitted under seal for the Court’s review in camera, and redacted from public filings.” [Id. ¶ 5].
Generally, the "public records and documents, including judicial records and documents," are presumed to be publicly accessible. See Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). For non-discovery motions, like in this case, there is a presumptive right of public access. Bradford & Bigelow, Inc. v. Richardson, 109 F. Supp. 3d 445, 447. See, e.g., Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 165 (3d Cir. 1993) (“[W]e hold there is a presumptive right to public access to all material filed in connection with nondiscovery pretrial motions, whether these motions are case dispositive or not... ”). To overcome this presumption, the moving party must show "good cause" or "most compelling reasons." Dunkin Donuts Franchised Restaurants, LLC v. Agawam Donuts, Inc., No. CIV. A. 07-11444-RWZ, 2008 WL 427290, at *1 (D. Mass. 2008) (“[A] party seeking to file a document under seal must demonstrate that ‘good cause’ exists to do so.”); United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 59 (1st Cir. 2013) ("[O]nly the most compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records..."). For good cause, the moving party must make “a particularized factual showing of the harm that would be sustained if the court did not allow the filing under seal.” Dunkin Donuts, 2008 WL 427290, at *1. In this regard, the party may “demonstrate significant countervailing interests, like the existence of trade secrets in the documents or confidential business information.” Bradford & Bigelow, Inc., 109 F. Supp. 3d at 448. See, e.g., Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (“[C]ourts have refused to permit their files to serve as... sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing.”). “Parties seeking to seal documents must explain, on a document-by-document basis, why sealing is req... (truncated)