Opinion

1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5 SAN JOSE DIVISION

6

7 RAILWARE, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-05725-BLF

8 Plaintiff,

v. ORDER GRANTING

9 ADMINISTRATIVE SEALING

PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT MOTION

10 POWERS BOARD,

[Re: ECF No. 85]

11 Defendant.

12

13

14 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to consider whether another party’s

15 material should be sealed. ECF No. 85. Defendant has filed a declaration in support of sealing.

16 ECF No. 114.

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 & Cty. 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

26 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016).

27 Parties moving to seal documents must also comply with the procedures established by

1 that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

2 otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek

3 sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In

4 part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly

5 tailored to seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion

6 thereof that is sought to be sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the

7 document” that indicates “by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that

8 have been omitted from the redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing

9 of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as

10 required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.”

11 Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

12 Plaintiff’s administrative motion concerns whether to seal portions of the first amended

13 complaint and exhibits attached thereto. Defendant must show that sealing is warranted under the

14 compelling reasons standard because the complaint is self-evidently “related to the merits of the

15 case.” Ground Zero Ctr. for Non-Violent Action v. United States Dep’t of Navy, 860 F.3d 1244,

16 1261 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court finds there are compelling reasons to seal the portions identified

17 in the administrative sealing motion, which concern proprietary technical information whose

18 disclosure could competitively injure the Parties. See SanDisk3d IP Holdings Ltd. v. Viasat, Inc.,

19 No. 22-cv-04376-HSG, 2025 WL 835034, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2025) (“Courts routinely

20 grant motions to seal confidential source code and product operation information.”); see also DSS

21 Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 14-cv-05330-HSG, 2020 WL 789549, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb.

22 18, 2020).

23 The motion is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS the following to remain under seal.

ECF No. Document Portion to Seal Reason

24 85-2 First Amended Highlighted Portions GRANTED: The

Complaint material includes

25

85-3 Exhibit D to First Entire Document confidential source

26 Amended Complaint code and product

85-4 Exhibit E to First Entire Document operation

27 Amended Complaint information, the

1 85-5 Exhibit F to First Entire Document disclosure of which

Amended Complaint would harm the

2 85-6 Exhibit K to First Entire Document Parties.

Amended Complaint

3 85-7 Exhibit M to First Entire Document

Amended Complaint

4 85-8 Exhibit X to First Entire Document

5 Amended Complaint

85-9 Exhibit AA to First Entire Document

6 Amended Complaint

7

8 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

10 || Dated: June 10, 2026

Pawnee

ETH LABSON FREEMAN

gq 12 United States District Judge

2B

14

15

16

17

©

Zz 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28