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. 24-cv-01314-BLF
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’
9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
10 GOOGLE LLC, et al., PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE
SEALED
11 Defendants.
[Re: ECF No. 158]
12
13 Before the Court is Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another
14 Party’s Material Should be Sealed. ECF No. 158. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is
15 GRANTED to the extent Plaintiffs seek redactions.
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., 435
20 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, 1099–101 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–80.
27 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local
1 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that
2 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive
3 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the
4 moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civil L.R. 79-
5 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.”
6 Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
7 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as
8 confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider
9 Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civil L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing
10 party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the
11 party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing,
12 file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civil L.R. 79-
13 5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing
14 of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any
15 party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(4).
16 II. DISCUSSION
17 Defendants’ sealing motion identifies as potentially confidential deposition transcripts
18 relating to two non-party family members of Plaintiffs Judy May and Denver May. ECF No. 158.
19 Defendants take no position on whether the material is sealable. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs have filed a
20 statement in support of sealing, arguing that maintaining the confidentiality of Ms. May, Denver
21 May, and their family’s personally identifiable information is necessary to protect the May
22 family’s privacy and to prevent the use of their information to commit an impersonation scam.
23 ECF No. 163 ¶ 4. Plaintiffs thus request that Exhibit A remain under seal. Id. ¶ 6. Plaintiffs do
24 not request that the unredacted reply brief remain under seal. Id. ¶ 7.
25 As the sealing request relates to a reply in support of a motion to strike, which the Court
26 finds is “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause[s] of action,” the Court will apply
27 the “compelling reasons” standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099–101. The Court finds
] Circuit has found that compelling reasons exist to keep personal information confidential to
2 || protect an individual’s privacy interest and to prevent exposure to harm or identity theft.” Nursing
3 Home Pension Fund vy. Oracle Corp., No. C01-00988 MJJ, 2007 WL 3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
4 || Nov. 1, 2007) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir.
5 || 2003)).
6 The Court’s ruling is summarized below:
7 Public ECF Document Portion(s) to Seal Ruling
No. /
8 Sealed
ECF. No.
9 159 / 158-2 Defendants’ Reply in | Highlighted portions at 7:6- | DENIED, as no party
Support of 8; 11:26-12:2. requests sealing.
10 Defendants’ Motion
1 to Strike Class
Allegations
3s 12 159-2 / Exhibit A Entire document GRANTED as containing
158-3 confidential personal
13 material.
14
Q 1S I. ORDER
a 16 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ administrative
5 17. || motion to consider whether another party’s material should be sealed, ECF No. 158, is
18 GRANTED to the extent Plaintiffs request redactions. Defendants SHALL refile public versions
19 of each filing where the redactions and sealing granted by the Court are narrower than what was
redacted in the current public versions by July 21, 2026.
21
Dated: July 14, 2026
22
23 fe TABS N FREEMAN
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28