Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01987/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01987-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332fr Diversity-Fraud

---

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

COLLEGESOURCE, INC., a California

corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv1987-GPC(MDD)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

[Dkt. No. 197.]

vs.

ACADEMYONE, INC., a Pennsylvania

corporation,

Defendant.

On March 8, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to file documents under seal in connection with

its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 197.) It seeks to file the

memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary

judgment; its response to amended statement of undisputed facts in support of Plaintiff’s motion for

partial summary judgment; and the Declaration of David Landau with attached exhibits under seal. 

There is a presumptive right of public access to court records based upon the common law and

the first amendment. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Phillips ex rel.

Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, access

may be denied to protect sensitive confidential information. Courts are more likely to protect

information covered by Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but are not limited by items

listed in protective orders. See KL Group v. Case, Kay, & Lynch, 829 F.2d 909, 917-19 (9th Cir.

- 1 - [08cv1987-GPC(MDD)]

Case 3:08-cv-01987-GPC-MDD Document 214 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 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

1987) (letter to client from attorney); Kalinauskas v. Wong, 151 F.R.D. 363, 365-67 (D. Nev. 1993)

(confidential settlement agreement). 

Parties seeking to seal documents in a dispositive motion must meet the high threshold

requiring “compelling reasons” with specific factual findings to support a sealing. Kamakana v. City

and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut.

Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). However, for non-dispositive motions, the

parties must show a lesser “particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180. The “compelling reasons” test requires showing

more than just “good cause.” Id. Documents filed under seal will be limited to only those documents,

or portions thereof, necessary to protect such sensitive information. 

Defendant moves to file under seal the documents listed above pursuant to the protective order

entered in CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., in case no. 10-3542 in the Eastern District of

Pennsylvania on July 1, 2011. In that protective order, the parties agreed that any document filed in

the action which contains materials designated as “confidential information” or “attorneys’ eyes only”

shall be filed under seal. Defendant specifically describes the exhibits attached to the Landau

declaration and references the protective order to support its request. While simply noting that a party

designated a document as confidential pursuant to a protective order is not a particularized showing,

Brocade Comm'ns Sys., Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc., C 10-3428 PSG, 2013 WL 211115, at *1

(N.D.Cal. Jan. 17, 2013), in this case, the parties agreed to have such documents filed under seal. The

Court concludes that such agreement that was signed and filed by the Court satisfies the compelling

reasons standard. Thus, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to file these documents under seal

with the exception of Exhibit E, which is a copy of the protective order publicly filed in the

Pennsylvania case. However, Defendant has failed to show a compelling reason why the entire

memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary

judgment and the response to amended statement of undisputed facts in support of Plaintiff’s motion

for partial summary judgment should be filed under seal. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to file the Declaration of David Landau

with attached Exhibits A-D under SEAL and DENIES Defendant’s motion as to Exhibit E. The Court

- 2 - [08cv1987-GPC(MDD)]

Case 3:08-cv-01987-GPC-MDD Document 214 Filed 03/29/13 Page 2 of 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

DENIES Defendant’s motion to file under seal the memorandum of points and authorities in

opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and the response to amended statement

of undisputed facts in support of Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment.1

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 29, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

Documents under seal will be limited to only those portions necessary to protect sensitive 1

information. Accordingly, a redacted document may be appropriate to protect the portions of the brief

containing confidential information. 

- 3 - [08cv1987-GPC(MDD)]

Case 3:08-cv-01987-GPC-MDD Document 214 Filed 03/29/13 Page 3 of 3