The opinion
1
2
3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5 SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
7 JUDY MAY, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01314-BLF
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER PLAINTIFF’S
10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., MATERIAL SHOULD BE SEALED
11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 122]
12 Before the Court is Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Plaintiff’s
13 Material Should be Sealed. ECF 122. Plaintiff filed a declaration in support of the sealing the
14 materials identified in Defendants’ motion. ECF 123.
For the reasons described below, Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether
15
Plaintiff’s Material Should be Sealed is GRANTED.
16
I. LEGAL STANDARD
17
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
18
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
19
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
20
435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong
21 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
22 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to
23 motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden
24 of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of
25 access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d
1092, 1100–01 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.
26
Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits
27
1 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for
2 access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are
often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal
3
quotations omitted)). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet
4
the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. This standard
5
requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the
6
information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
7
1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated
8
by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins.
9 Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
10 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local
11 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a
12 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that
13 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive
alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5
14
requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.”
15
Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable
16
material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
17
Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as
18
confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider
19
Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing
20 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the
21 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing,
22 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-
23 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing
24 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any party
can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).
25
II. DISCUSSION
26
Because the sealing motion concerns an exhibit in connection with Defendants’ Motion to
27
1 standard. See Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., No. 01 Civ. 00988-MJJ, 2007 WL
2 || 3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007).
3 Defendants’ sealing motion identifies messages that contains Plaintiffs personal
4 || information, including Plaintiff's address. ECF 122 at 2. Defendants take no position on their
5 sealing request. Jd. Plaintiff requests the sealing of this information because it is “necessary to
6 || protect her family’s privacy and to prevent the use of their information to commit identity theft.”
7 ECF 123 at 3. The Court finds that Plaintiff has established compelling reasons to seal
8 || information “to keep personal information confidential to protect an individual’s privacy interest
9 || and to prevent exposure to harm or identity theft.” Nursing Home Pension Fund, No. 01 Civ.
10 00988-MJJ, 2007 WL 3232267, at *2 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
11 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003)).
Il. ORDER
13 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
14 Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Plaintiff's Material Should Be
3 15 Sealed at ECF 122 is GRANTED. The exhibit filed at ECF 122 SHALL remain under seal.
16
= 17 Dated: September 17, 2025
18 fconfinccnar
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
19 United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28