Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00716/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00716-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332nr Diversity-Notice of Removal

---

1

17-CV-0716-AJB-AGS

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

ANDREA GOODE, an Individual,

Plaintiff,

v.

ELC BEAUTY LLC, a Delaware Limited 

Liability Company; DOES 1 through 20, 

Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17-CV-0716-AJB-AGS

ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ 

JOINT MOTION TO SEAL

(Doc. No. 14)

Presently before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to seal an attachment to 

Defendant’s notice of removal. (Doc. No. 14.) Having reviewed the parties’ arguments in 

light of controlling authority, and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1.d.1, the Court finds the 

matter suitable for decision without oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court GRANTS the parties’ motion.

BACKGROUND

This dispute arises from Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant. She brings several 

causes of action under California state law. Plaintiff instituted this lawsuit in San Diego 

Superior Court, but Defendant removed the action to this Court when Plaintiff’s settlement 

demand indicated the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional minimum. 

Defendant attached the settlement demand to its notice of removal as Exhibit G. The parties 

now jointly move to have Exhibit G sealed.

LEGAL STANDARD

Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 

Case 3:17-cv-00716-AJB-AGS Document 15 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17-CV-0716-AJB-AGS

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

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” 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.” 

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 

v. State Farm. Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to 

overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate 

justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See id. at 

1178–79. In turn, the court must “‘conscientiously balance[] the competing interests’ of 

the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 

(quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). 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. (quoting 

Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)).

However, where the material is, at most, “tangentially related to the merits of [the] 

case,” the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good cause.” Ctr. for Auto Safety 

v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Furthermore, because the 

“good cause” standard derives from Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 

application of the “strong presumption of access to documents a court has already decided 

should be shielded from the public” is similarly inappropriate as it “would surely 

undermine, and possibly eviscerate, the broad power of the district court to fashion 

protective orders . . . .” Id. at 1097 (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). “Even under the ‘good cause’ standard of 

Rule 26(c), however, a party must make a ‘particularized showing’ with respect to any 

individual document in order to justify sealing the relevant document.” Dugan v. Lloyds 

TSB Bank, PLC, No. 12-CV-02549-WHA (NJV), 2013 WL 1435223, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 

9, 2013) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180).

DISCUSSION

The parties seek to seal Exhibit G attached to the notice of removal, which contains 

Case 3:17-cv-00716-AJB-AGS Document 15 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17-CV-0716-AJB-AGS

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

a settlement demand. (Doc. No. 14 at 3.) The parties assert good cause exists to seal because 

it would promote the strong public policy of confidential settlement discussions and 

resolution of disputes outside the judicial process, and because harm to the parties 

outweighs the public’s right of access. (Id. at 3–5.) The Court agrees.

Although “public access to filed motions and their attachments does not depend on 

whether the motion is ‘dispositive,’” whether a motion is dispositive or nondispositive is 

relevant in determining which standard governs the Court’s inquiry. See Ctr. for Auto 

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. The Court finds this factor favors finding the good cause standard 

applies because removal of an action to federal court does not adjudicate the parties’ 

substantive rights. Id. at 1098 (noting dispositive motions are those that “adjudicate[] 

substantive rights”). The Court further finds that Exhibit G is “tangentially related” to the 

merits of the underlying case given that its contents affect only the Court’s jurisdiction.

The Court therefore finds that Rule 26(c)’s “good cause” standard governs here.

Having reviewed Exhibit G, the Court finds the parties have satisfied the good cause 

standard because the document contains Plaintiff’s settlement demand. As the Ninth 

Circuit has recognized, “courts have granted protective orders to protect confidential 

settlement agreements.” Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 

1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002). The Court further finds that the proposed redaction is “narrowly 

tailored” to seal only sealable material. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to seal. (Doc. 

No. 14.) The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to file Exhibit G to the notice of removal, 

(Doc. No. 1-8), under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00716-AJB-AGS Document 15 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17-CV-0716-AJB-AGS

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

Case 3:17-cv-00716-AJB-AGS Document 15 Filed 05/26/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4