Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02522/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-02522-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 160
Nature of Suit: Stockholder's Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Securities Violation

---

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

GUYE LEE,

Plaintiff,

v.

GREGORY S CLARK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02522-KAW 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 3

On May 10, 2019, Plaintiff Guye Lee filed a derivative complaint against certain members 

of nominal Defendant Symantec Corporation’s Board of Directors, asserting breaches of fiduciary 

duties, insider trading, unjust enrichment, and violations of Securities Exchange Act § 14. 

(Compl. at 1, Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff also filed an administrative motion to file under seal, on the 

grounds that the complaint refers to information produced subject to a confidentiality agreement. 

(Dkt. No. 3 at 1.) Plaintiff attached a declaration stating that the information concerned Board of 

Directors meeting attendance and minutes, proprietary financial information, and other materials. 

(Portnoy Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Dkt. No. 2.)

The Court DENIES the motion to file under seal without prejudice. “Historically, courts 

have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 

judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 

(9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). “Unless 

a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in favor of access is 

the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). The burden is therefore on the party seeking to 

seal a judicial record to “overcom[e] this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ 

standard. That is, the party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual 

Case 4:19-cv-02522-KAW Document 9 Filed 05/29/19 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

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

disclosure . . . .” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotations omitted). "”[C]ompelling 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.” Id. at 1179.

Here, Plaintiff seeks to seal a significant portion of the complaint, including the entirety of 

Paragraphs 85-103, 106-108, 110, 135-136, 140-148, 200-204, 206-210, 212-216, 218-222, 224-

228, 230-234, 236-240, and 242-246. “This Court and other district courts in the Ninth Circuit 

have applied the compelling reasons standard to a motion to seal involving the filing of a 

complaint because a complaint is the foundation of a lawsuit.” Ponomarenko v. Shapiro, Case No. 

16-cv-2763-BLF, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133560, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2017); see also In re 

Google Inc. Gmail Litig., Case No. 13-md-2430-LHK, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138910, at *11 

(N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013).

While Plaintiff asserts that the redactions concern information subject to a confidentiality 

agreement, this does not satisfy the compelling reasons requirement. See No Cost Conf., Inc. v. 

Windstream Communs., Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 1285, 1308 (S.D. Cal. 2013) (denying motion to file 

under seal where “No Cost has not made a showing that outweighs the public interest beyond 

stating that the document is covered by the confidentiality agreement . . . . This threadbare 

argument is insufficient.”). Per Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A), “[r]eference to a stipulation . . . 

that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that 

a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Moreover, no declaration has been filed by the 

designating party establishing that the designated material is in fact sealable. Civil L.R. 79-5(e). 

Indeed, it is not clear the designating party has had an opportunity to review the complaint and 

determine whether the redactions are in fact necessary. Compare with City of Birmingham Relief 

& Ret. Sys. v. Hastings, Case No. 18-cv-2107-BLF, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64686, at *4 (N.D. 

Cal. Apr. 17, 2018) (“Netflix, as the designating party, timely filed declarations in support of 

Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal portions of the Complaint pursuant to the Confidentiality 

Case 4:19-cv-02522-KAW Document 9 Filed 05/29/19 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

Agreement.”); Guo v. Woodman, Case No. 18-cv-920-MEJ, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28065, at *3-4 

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2018) (granting motion to file under seal where the designating party provided 

a declaration in support).

For that reason, the Court DENIES the motion to file under seal without prejudice. Any 

renewed motion to file under seal should be narrowly tailored to information that is sealable, and 

supported by a declaration with specific factual findings. Additionally, the motion to file under 

seal must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(D), which requires that the unredacted version 

“indicate, by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been 

omitted from the redacted version,” as well as Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(2), which requires the 

provision of a courtesy copy.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2019

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-02522-KAW Document 9 Filed 05/29/19 Page 3 of 3