Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00692/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00692-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEO. M. MARTIN COMPANY, a California

corporation, and THE MARTIN FAMILY

TRUST - 1989, 

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALLIANCE MACHINE SYSTEMS

INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Wyoming

corporation,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-00692 WHA

ORDER DENYING REQUESTS TO

FILE UNDER SEAL

Plaintiffs and defendant’s requests to file documents under seal are DENIED. In

Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that more

than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons” are required to seal documents used in

dispositive motions, just as compelling reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a

courtroom during trial. Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the

courts will be unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed

on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant first shows a

“compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good cause.” Only social security

numbers, names of juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a

compelling nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom

would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment proceedings, which

are, in effect, a substitute for trial.

Case 3:07-cv-00692-WHA Document 84 Filed 03/12/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiffs and defendant have failed to meet their burden. In their motions to seal,

plaintiffs and defendant have listed over twenty documents to be filed under seal. Some of the

documents belong to plaintiffs and some to defendant. Neither plaintiffs nor defendant,

however, have given a “compelling reason” for any of the documents to be filed under seal. In

addition, a party may not meet their burden by simply designating a document as confidential. 

Such circumstances would confer upon the parties the power to seal any document it so

chooses. For the foregoing reasons, all requests to file under seal are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 12, 2008. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00692-WHA Document 84 Filed 03/12/08 Page 2 of 2