# Richter v. Oracle America, Inc. > District Court, N.D. California · August 30, 2023 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076336 ## Case - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** August 30, 2023 - **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/10076336 ## Opinion text 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 HAONING RICHTER, Case No. 22-cv-04795-BLF 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 ORACLE AMERICA, INC., [Re: ECF No. 69] 11 Defendant. 12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Haoning Richter’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 14 two declarations in support of her Opposition to Defendant Oracle America, Inc.’s Motion for 15 Attorneys’ Fees. ECF No. 69. For the reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED as it 16 pertains to the paragraphs of the declarations identified below. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the 22 merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for 23 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 24 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 25 1097. 26 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 27 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 1 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 2 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 3 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 4 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 5 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 6 II. DISCUSSION 7 This Court follows numerous other district courts within the Ninth Circuit in concluding 8 that the good cause standard applies to motions to seal documents relating to a motion for 9 attorneys’ fees. See, e.g., In re Anthem, Inc. Data Breach Litig., No. 15-MD-02617-LHK, 2018 10 WL 3960068, at *33 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018) (applying good cause standard because issues in 11 attorneys’ fees motion were only tangentially related to the merits of the case); MacDonald v. 12 Ford Motor Co., No. 13-CV-02988-JST, 2016 WL 7826647, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2016) 13 (same); TVIIM, LLC v. McAfee, Inc., No. 13-CV-04545-HSG, 2015 WL 5116721, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 14 Aug. 28, 2015) (applying good cause standard “[b]ecause Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees 15 and costs is a nondispositive motion.”). 16 Plaintiff requests to file under seal the declarations in support of her Opposition because 17 they contain personal financial information. ECF No. 69 at 3. Although Plaintiff’s motion 18 identifies portions of the declarations that are sealable, ECF No. 69 at 3–4, Plaintiff’s motion, the 19 supporting declaration, and its proposed order request that the Court seal the declarations, rather 20 than portions of the declarations. ECF Nos. 69 at 4, 69-1 ¶ 1, 69-2. The Court presumes that the 21 request is to seal only the portions of the declarations identified in the table on pages 3 and 4 of 22 Plaintiff’s motion. ECF No. 69 at 3–4. 23 District courts within the Ninth Circuit have found that a party’s legitimate interest in 24 ensuring the privacy of personal information outweighs the public’s interest in access to court 25 filings. See Activision Publ’g, Inc. v. EngineOwning UG, No. CV 2:22-cv-00051-MWF (JCx), 26 2023 WL 2347134, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2023) (“[C]ompelling reasons exist to keep personal 27 information confidential to protect an individual’s privacy interest and to prevent exposure to 1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2019) (finding compelling reasons to seal exhibits containing details regarding 2 || “NetApp’s compensation structure and personal information about NetApp executives and their 3 spouses”); Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., No. CO1-00988 MJJ, 2007 WL 3232267, 4 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) (finding compelling reasons to seal home addresses and financial 5 account information). Such information is therefore sealable under the “less exacting” good cause 6 standard. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. 7 The Court finds good cause to seal Plaintiff's declarations. The protection of personal 8 || financial information will protect the declarants’ privacy interests and protect them from harm. 9 || The Court also finds that, construed as a request to seal only the identified paragraphs, Plaintiff’s 10 || request is narrowly tailored. 11 The Court rules as follows: | FECENo. PortionstoSeal | Ruling & 13 69-3 Declaration of Gautam Paragraphs 3-5 GRANTED, as containing Dutta confidential personal financial v 14 information, the disclosure of which would cause harm. 15 69-4 Declaration of Haoning Paragraphs 4—7 GRANTED, as containing A 16 Richter confidential personal financial information, the disclosure of 3 17 which would cause harm. 1g || I. ORDER 19 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs motion to file under seal, 29 || ECF No. 69, with respect to the paragraphs identified above. Plaintiff is directed to file redacted versions of the declarations on the public docket no later than September 6, 2023. 22 24 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10076336. Public record. Not legal advice.