The opinion
1
2
3
4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7 KEVIN SCHULTE, et al., Case No. 22-cv-00237-HSG
8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
9 v. SEAL
10 LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Re: Dkt. No. 247
11 Defendant.
12
13 Pending before this Court is Defendant’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal related
14 to its Motion for Relief from a Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of a Magistrate Judge. Dkt. Nos.
15 246–47. No opposition was filed. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-11(b), 79-5(c). The Court GRANTS
16 IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for failure to narrowly tailor various sealing
17 requests. Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
18 Courts generally apply the “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to
19 seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
20 Kamakana v. Cty. & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard
21 derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
22 judicial records and documents.’” Id. But records attached to motions that are only “tangentially
23 related to the underlying cause of action” must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Federal
24 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097,
25 1099, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted); see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. The “good
26 cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if
27 the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
1 specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,
2 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
3 The good cause standard applies to this sealing motion because the underlying motion for
4 relief addresses a non-dispositive pretrial deposition discovery order that is “tangentially related to
5 the underlying cause of action.” Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc., No. 22-cv-04844-BLF, 2025 WL 460065, at
6 *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2025). There are “compelling reasons,” and thus “good cause,” to seal
7 “sensitive financial information” that “would allow a competitor an unfair advantage” “by
8 allowing them to glean otherwise confidential information about” a party’s “strengths and areas
9 for improvement in various geographic areas and market segments that is not otherwise available
10 to the public.” Hunt v. Cont’l Cas. Co., No. 13-cv-05966-HSG, 2015 WL 5355398, at *2 (N.D.
11 Cal. Sept. 14, 2015) (quotations omitted). Thus, courts have sealed “license agreements, financial
12 terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies,” as well as
13 “confidential and proprietary business, sales, or licensing information, including the identities of
14 the customers who subscribe to Defendant’s database and Defendant’s financial performance and
15 company strategy.” Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-04810-HSG, 2020 WL
16 2838812, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (collecting cases and quotations omitted). Further, in
17 some cases, employees’ personally identifiable information may be sealable where “not relevant to
18 the merits.” Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 19-cv-02658-LHK, 2021 WL 1951250, at *3
19 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021).
20 The Court rules as follows:
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
Docket Document Proposed Ruling
1
No. Portion(s)
2 to be
Sealed
3 Dkt. Motion for Redactions GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as
Nos. Relief from as follows:
4 246 / Non- highlighted
247-2 dispositive in Exhibit There is no good cause to seal: 4:19 parenthetical related
5
Pretrial A to this to -173967; first clause of the first sentence of 4 n.6; 4 n.6
6 Order of motion. parenthetical related to -00188009; 5:1; 5:11; and 5 n.7
Magistrate parentheticals related to -00155549, -211971. These
7 Judge, filed contain high-level, general descriptions of underlying
August 17, documents that do not in of themselves reveal any
8 2026. “strengths and areas for improvement” for Defendant, or
any details about “proprietary business” activities, and are
9
therefore not “particularized,” narrowly tailored proposed
10 redactions of sealable material. Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3);
Gen. Motors, 307 F.3d at 1210–11; Hunt, 2015 WL
11 5355398, at *2; Snapkeys, 2021 WL 1951250, at *3;
Exeltis, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1–2.
12
Conversely, there is good cause to seal: 4:18–19
13
parenthetical related to -00174719; second clause of the
14 first sentence of 4 n.6; 5:3–5; and 5 n.7 parenthetical
related to -191393. Cf. id.
15 Dkt. Exhibit 1 to Sealed in GRANTED as follows: There is good cause to seal this
Nos. Motion for its entirety. information, as it is related to business “strengths and
16
246-1 / Relief from areas for improvement,” “proprietary business, sales, or
17 247-3 Non- licensing information,” and contains employees’
dispositive personally identifiable information. Id.
18 Pretrial
Order of
19 Magistrate
Judge, filed
20
August 17,
21 2026.
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
] The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for failure to narrowly
2 |} tailor various sealing recommendations. Dkt. No. 247. By September 10, 2026, Defendant
3 SHALL file on the public docket a redacted version of the Motion for Relief from a Non-
4 || Dispositive Pretrial Order of a Magistrate Judge, Dkt. No. 246, consistent with this Court’s order.
5 IT IS SO ORDERED.
6 || Dated: 9/4/2026
a 6 S. GILLIAM, JR. it
8 United States District Judge
9
10
1]
a 12
13
14
15
16
17
Z 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28