Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02449/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02449-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332pi Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1

14cv2449-L (MDD)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TASNEEM L. MOHAMED,

Plaintiff,

v.

KELLOGG COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No.: 14cv2449-L (MDD)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE PLAINITFF'S EX 

PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE 

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL [doc. 

no. 65]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's unopposed ex parte application to file under 

seal the entirety of Exhibits B, C, F and G to Declaration of Samantha A. Smith in 

Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification [doc. no. 66]. For the reasons which 

follow, Plaintiff's application is denied.

Sealing court records implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public 

records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner

Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). The lack of opposition to a motion to 

seal therefore does not automatically resolve it. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. 

Co., 331 F.3d 1128, 1130 & passim (9th Cir. 2003). Aside from “grand jury transcripts 

and warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation,” a strong 

presumption applies in favor of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City and 

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, a party seeking 

Case 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD Document 71 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

14cv2449-L (MDD)

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

to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of public 

access by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178. The compelling 

reasons standard applies to all motions except those that are only “tangentially related to 

the merits of a case.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 

(9th Cir. 2016). Plaintiff's motion for class certification is more than tangentially related 

to the merits. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2552 & n.6 (2011)

(although in ruling on class certification the court does not decide the merits of the case, 

the inquiry overlaps with the merits inquiry); see also Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 

657 F.3d 970, 981 (9th Cir. 2011) (the merits of a plaintiff’s substantive claims are often 

highly relevant in determining whether to grant class certification).

To meet its burden, the moving party must make a "particularized showing," 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) and, further,

must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings 

that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process. 

In turn, the court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of the 

public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After 

considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial 

records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the 

factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.

In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public's interest 

in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files 

might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of 

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous 

statements, or release trade secrets. The mere fact that the production of 

records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to 

further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.

Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted). 

Plaintiff's request is based solely on a stipulated protective order, and Plaintiff's 

counsel "takes no position on the bona fides of Defendant's designation of . . . documents

as [c]onfidential," although he alludes to "sensitive business matters" and "Defendant's 

Case 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD Document 71 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

14cv2449-L (MDD)

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

research and marketing strategies that could be used by competitors to gain an[] unfair 

advantage." (Ex Parte App. at 2-3.) This falls short of a "particularized showing" and is 

an insufficient basis for the Court to "articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without 

relying on hypothesis or conjecture." See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180, 1179. 

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's ex parte application is denied. Denial is

without prejudice to refiling the application with appropriate legal support and a

particularized explanation of compelling reasons. Any such application shall also be 

narrowly tailored. The Court is not inclined to seal the exhibits in their entirety, but only 

the portions supported by a particularized showing of compelling reasons.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2018

Case 3:14-cv-02449-L-MDD Document 71 Filed 07/24/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3