# Opinion > District Court, N.D. California · June 10, 2026 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379968 ## Case - **Full name:** Railware, Inc. v. Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board - **Court:** District Court, N.D. California - **Decided:** June 10, 2026 - **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/11379968 ## Opinion text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11379968. Public record. Not legal advice.