# Gearsource Holdings, LLC v. Google LLC > District Court, N.D. California · February 24, 2021 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10066814 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** February 24, 2021 - **Opinion:** 100trialcourt - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10066814 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GEARSOURCE HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 18-cv-03812-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 9 v. FILE UNDER SEAL 10 GOOGLE LLC, Re: Dkt. Nos. 164, 166 11 Defendant. 12 13 Pending before the Court are Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal 14 documents related to its motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff’s expert. Dkt. No. 164. Also 15 pending is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal documents related to its opposition 16 to Defendant’s motion in limine. Dkt. No. 166. The Court GRANTS both motions for the 17 reasons described below. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 20 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 21 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 22 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 23 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 24 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 25 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 26 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 27 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 1 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 2 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 3 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 4 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 5 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 6 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 7 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 8 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 9 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 10 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 11 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 12 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 13 document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are 14 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The 15 request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 16 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 17 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 18 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 19 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 20 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 21 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 22 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 23 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 Because Defendant’s motion in limine is not a dispositive motion, the Court applies the 26 lower good cause standard. 27 The current sealing requests seek to seal information that contain confidential business and 1 166-3 at 2; Dkt. No. 166-5 at 1-2. The Court previously granted some of the sealing requests 2 seeking to seal materially identical information that was attached to Defendant’s motion for 3 summary judgment and thus subject to the more stringent “compelling reason” standard. See Dkt. 4 No. 174. The Court previously found that Defendant had narrowly tailored its proposed 5 redactions to protect only the information that is sealable. See Civil L.R. 79-5(b); Dkt. No. 174. 6 In these motions as well, Defendant and Plaintiff propose limited redactions of only the 7 information that the Court has previously found to be sealable. 8 Further, the parties’ filed a joint motion for dismissal on September 30, 2020, and the case 9 was subsequently terminated without a ruling on the motion in limine. Dkt. No. 186; Dkt. No. 10 189. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial 11 proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is minimal 12 given that the Court will not rule on Defendant’s motion in limine. See In re iPhone Application 13 Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The 14 public’s interest in accessing these documents is even further diminished in light of the fact that 15 the Court will not have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.”). 16 Accordingly, because the documents divulge confidential business and financial information 17 unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the Court finds 18 that there is good cause to file the documents under seal. See Economus v. City & Cty. of San 19 Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) (finding 20 compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulges sensitive information no longer 21 related to the case); In re iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12- 22 CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of 23 personal information and irrelevance to the matter are compelling reasons to seal the exhibit). 24 III. CONCLUSION 25 The Court GRANTS Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s administrative motions to file under seal. 26 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative 27 // 1 motions are granted will remain under seal. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: 2/24/2021 / ° HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 a 12 15 QO 16 («17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10066814. Public record. Not legal advice.