The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 ASHTON WOODS HOLDINGS L.L.C., et Case No. 15-cv-01247-HSG
al.,
8 ORDER GRANTING
Plaintiffs, ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
9 SEAL
v.
10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 81, 90, 96, 116, 118
USG CORPORATION, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12
13 Pending before the Court are five motions to seal filed by Plaintiffs and proposed
14 intervenors related to Plaintiffs’ motion for live-streamed trial testimony, motions to intervene for
15 the limited purpose of opposing the request for live-streamed testimony, and Plaintiffs’
16 oppositions to the motions to intervene. See Dkt. Nos. 81, 90, 96, 116, 118. For the reasons
17 detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motions.
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 the motions to seal relate to Plaintiffs’ motion for live-streamed trial testimony
26 and motions to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing that non-dispositive request, the
27 court will apply the “good cause” standard.
1 The current motions seek to seal documents and portions of documents that contain
2 confidential business information produced pursuant to a protective order entered in the multi-
3 district litigation captioned In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., Case No. 2:13-md-02437-
4 MMB (E.D. Pa.), private health information of a non-party, and details of confidential settlement
5 agreements. See Dkt. Nos. 81, 90, 96, 116, 118.
6 The Court did not rely on any of the documents that are the subject of the motions to seal,
7 given that the parties filed a notice of settlement and joint stipulation of dismissal, terminating the
8 case, before the Court ruled on the non-dispositive motions that prompted the filings. See Dkt.
9 Nos. 133, 136, 139. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public’s understanding of the
10 judicial proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is
11 minimal given that the Court will not rule on the underlying motions. See In re iPhone
12 Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013)
13 (“The public’s interest in accessing these documents is even further diminished in light of the fact
14 that the Court will not have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.”).
15 Accordingly, because the documents divulge confidential business, health, and settlement
16 information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the
17 Court finds that there is good cause to file the documents under seal. See Economus v. City & Cty.
18 of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019)
19 (finding compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulges sensitive information no
20 longer related to the case); In re iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe v. City of San Diego,
21 No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s
22 disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the matter are compelling reasons to seal the
23 exhibit).
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
Il CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the administrative motions to file under seal. Pursuant to Civil Local
2
Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are granted
3
will remain under seal.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated: 3/29/2022
7 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
9
10
11
a 12
14
15
16
= 17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28