Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00798-84/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOOP AI LABS INC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANNA GATTI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-00798-HSG 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATVIE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 553

In conjunction with Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff has filed an 

administrative motion to file under seal, Dkt. No. 553. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal documents 

like the ones at issue here. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). “This 

standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, 

including judicial records and documents.’” Id. “[A] ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the 

starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). To 

overcome this strong presumption, the moving party 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.” Id. at 1178-79 (citations, 

internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). The Court must “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.” Id. 

at 1179 (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case” are 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 632 Filed 04/29/16 Page 1 of 3
2

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

Northern District of California

not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 

F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must meet the 

lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 8-9. 

The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 

will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 

26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” 

will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

Civil Local Rule 79-5 further supplements the compelling reasons standard. The party seeking 

to file a document or portions of it under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof, 

are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. . . .The 

request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

II. DISCUSSION 

Because the motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is more than tangentially related to 

the merits of the underlying action, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard in 

evaluating the motion to seal. 

The Court DENIES the administrative motion to seal. First, Plaintiff’s declaration fails to 

establish that its request is “narrowly tailored” to the sealable information as required under by 

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). Second, several of the documents Plaintiff seeks to file under seal were 

designated confidential by the opposing party or non-parties. See Dkt. No. 556 (Plaintiff’s revised 

chart identifying the documents sought to be sealed and the designating party). The local rules 

provide that under these circumstances: 

[T]he Submitting Party’s declaration in support of the 

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal must identify the 

document or portions thereof which contain the designated 

confidential material and identify the party that has designated the 

material as confidential (‘the Designating Party’). The declaration 

must be served on the Designating Party on the same day it is filed 

and a proof of such service must also be filed. 

Civ. L-R 79-5(e) (emphasis added). Here, there is no evidence on the docket that Plaintiff served 

the requisite declaration on each designating party on the same day the motion was filed, as 

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 632 Filed 04/29/16 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

Plaintiff did not file the proofs of service. Without service of the declaration on the designating 

party, the designating party cannot meet Rule 79-5(e)(1)’s requirement that a designating party file 

a declaration establishing that the designated material is in fact sealable. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the administrative motion to seal without prejudice. Any 

renewed administrative motion to seal must comply in every regard with the local rules, and must 

be filed no later than May 4, 2016. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

4/29/2016

Case 4:15-cv-00798-HSG Document 632 Filed 04/29/16 Page 3 of 3