Little v. Pacific Seafood Procurement, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BRAND LITTLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCUREMENT,
LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 23-cv-01098-AGT
ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 746, 769
Pacific Seafood seeks permission to redact paragraphs 587 and 594–98 in Plaintiffs’
sixth amended complaint. Those paragraphs quote text messages sent or received by Pacific
Seafood employees on their cell phones. Pacific Seafood maintains that the messages are
“not probative of any of the claims or defenses in this action” and that Plaintiffs quote them
“solely to embarrass and harass” the employees and Pacific Seafood. Dkt. 756 at 2. The
Court concludes otherwise and denies the request to redact these paragraphs in toto.
The text messages relate to alleged retaliation by Pacific Seafood and other Defend-
ants against Ozzie Gregorio (Plaintiff’s Confidential Informant #1) when Gregorio allegedly
refused to cooperate with cartel activity. While the Court isn’t making any ultimate findings
in this sealing order, it appears that the messages are plausibly relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims.
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 798 Filed 07/29/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Retaliation against Gregorio could make the existence of a conspiracy more likely.
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs aren’t seeking to use these messages “to gratify
private spite, promote public scandal, [or] circulate libelous statements.” Kamakana v. City
& Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). And although the messages may
cause embarrassment, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s
embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, com-
pel the court to seal its records.” Id. Pacific Seafood cannot redact in toto the paragraphs in
question from the sixth amended complaint.1
Alternatively, Pacific Seafood asks the Court to enter an order that would protect the
identity of the text-message participants in paragraphs 587 and 594–98. The Court will take
this less drastic step. Because of the inflammatory nature of these particular text messages
(which use profane language and express a desire to assault Gregario), the Court will allow
Pacific Seafood to redact the names of the participants and substitute in their place identifiers
like “Pacific Seafood Employee A.” Doing so will balance non-party privacy interests and
the public’s interest in understanding Plaintiffs’ allegations.2
By August 3, 2026, Pacific Seafood must provide Plaintiffs with a copy of the sixth
amended complaint that includes the limited redactions approved herein. Barring a dispute
over the Pacific Seafood–provided redactions, Plaintiffs shall file that version of the sixth
amended complaint by August 6, 2026. Except for the names of the message participants in
1 For the same reasons articulated above, the Court denies Pacific Seafood’s request to re-
dact Plaintiffs’ summaries of the disputed complaint paragraphs in Plaintiffs’ brief in oppo-
sition to Pacific Seafood’s sealing request. See Dkts. 769, 781. Plaintiffs must file an unre-
dacted version of that brief by August 6, 2026.
2 The balance may change later in the litigation, however, and there may come a time when
the message participants’ identities will need to be publicly revealed.
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 798 Filed 07/29/26 Page 2 of 3

3
paragraphs 587 and 594–98, all other parts of the sixth amended complaint must be unsealed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 29, 2026
______________________________
Alex G. Tse
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-01098-AGT Document 798 Filed 07/29/26 Page 3 of 3