Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05326/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-05326-16/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

DAN VIGDOR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

SUPER LUCKY CASINO, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-05326-HSG 

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 80, 88, 92, 112, 115, 122, 

126, 130, 133, 140

Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to seal various documents 

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. Nos. 80, 88, 92, 112, 115, 122, 126, 130, 133, and 140.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

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

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 

v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from 

the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 

records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in 

favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation omitted). To 

overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a 

dispositive motion 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” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178-

79 (quotation omitted). “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, 

Case 4:16-cv-05326-HSG Document 143 Filed 09/18/18 Page 1 of 7
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

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “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.

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. Civil Local Rule 79-5 

supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: 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). 

Records attached to nondispositive motions, however, are not subject to the strong 

presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because such records “are often 

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal 

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Id. at 1179-80 (quotation omitted). This requires only 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); see also 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) (quotation 

omitted).

II. DISCUSSION

The various documents and portions of documents the parties seek to seal are more than 

tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, and the Court therefore applies the 

“compelling reasons” standard. The parties have provided a compelling interest in sealing 

portions of the various documents listed below because they contain confidential business and 

financial information relating to the operations of Defendants. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. 

Case 4:16-cv-05326-HSG Document 143 Filed 09/18/18 Page 2 of 7
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

Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL 6115623 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency 

Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto Group, Inc., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1001, 1017 (E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex 

Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. C 13-159 CW, 2014 WL 6901744 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 

2014) (holding sensitive financial information falls within the class of documents that may be filed 

under seal). The parties have identified portions of the unredacted versions of motions and 

exhibits as containing confidential business information; the Court finds sufficiently compelling 

reasons to grant the motions to file the below-indicated portions under seal. 

A number of Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions indicate that they are contingent upon 

Defendants filing a declaration in support of those portions sought to be redacted. As evidenced in 

the chart, the Court DENIES the sealing of documents relating to Defendants’ CBI for which 

neither party has provided support. 

The parties request the following portions of the various documents be sealed:

Docket Number

Public/(Sealed)

Document Portion(s) Sought to be Sealed Ruling (basis)

80-3/(80-1) Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Leave to File a Fourth 

Amended Complaint

Proposed redactions listed in 

Dkt. No. 80

GRANTED

No Public Version 

Filed/(80-2)

Murray Declaration Proposed redactions listed in 

Dkt. No. 80, plus page 5, lines 

1–12 of the proposed Fourth 

Amended Complaint and 

redline.

The Court DENIES the motion 

to seal Exhibits A–C to Exhibit 

1 to the Murray Declaration and 

quotations from these 

documents. 

GRANTED IN 

PART

No Public Version 

Filed/(88-3)

Exhibit 9 to Estrin 

Declaration

(Plaintiff’s Responses 

to Defendant’s Third 

Set of Interrogatories)

7:8-10; 17:7-9; 24:2-4, 24:10-

12; 25:28-26:2; 27:28-28:2; 

28:9-10; 29:18-19; 30:13-15; 

31:15-19; 32:23-25; 37:27-38:1; 

40:1-2

GRANTED

No Public Version 

Filed/(92-5)

Fourth Amended 

Complaint

Proposed redactions in Dkt. No. 

92-4, plus page 5, lines 1–12 of 

the proposed Fourth Amended 

Complaint.

The Court DENIES the motion 

to seal Exhibits A–C to the 

GRANTED IN 

PART

Case 4:16-cv-05326-HSG Document 143 Filed 09/18/18 Page 3 of 7
4

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

Fourth Amended Complaint and 

quotations from these 

documents.

No Public Version 

Filed/(112/4)

Defendants’ Motion 

for Summary 

Judgment

Page 3, lines 6-7 Page 6, lines 

6-12, 14-22 Page 7, lines 1 Page 

14, lines 13-17 Page 16, lines 

13-14 Page 17, lines 11, 27 

Page 24, lines 7-11, 15-16, 18-

19 Page 25, lines 2-3, 6-8, 10-

12, 25-26

GRANTED IN 

PART

No Public Version 

Filed /(112-5)

Exhibit 1 to Allen 

Declaration

Entire document DENIED (no 

supporting 

declaration)

Entire document 

sealed/(112-6)

Exhibit 2 to Allen 

Declaration

Entire document GRANTED

Entire document 

sealed/(112-7)

Exhibit 5 to Allen 

Declaration

Entire document GRANTED

Entire document 

sealed/(112-8)

Exhibit 8 to Allen 

Declaration

Entire document GRANTED

Entire document 

sealed/(112-9)

Exhibit 9 to Allen 

Declaration

Entire document GRANTED

Entire document 

sealed/(112-10)

Exhibit 10 to Allen 

Declaration

Entire document GRANTED

No Public Version 

Filed /(112-11)

Exhibit 13 to Allen 

Declaration

Entire document DENIED (no 

supporting 

declaration)

No Public Version 

Filed /(112-12)

Exhibit 14 to Allen 

Declaration

Entire document DENIED (no 

supporting 

declaration)

No Public Version 

Filed /(112-13)

Exhibit 15 to Allen 

Declaration

Entire document DENIED (no 

supporting 

declaration)

No Public Version 

Filed /(112-14)

Exhibit 16 to Allen 

Declaration

Entire document DENIED (no 

supporting 

declaration)

No Public Version 

Filed/(115-5)

Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

1:14, 2:10-3:22, 4:3-6, 5:12, 13-

14, 5:20-6:1, 5:27-28, 6:6-9, 

6:12-20, 9:25, 10:6, 11:8-11, 

12:27-28, 12:28-13:1, 13:4-6, 

13:10-11, 13:26-27

The Court DENIES the motion 

to seal: 5:10, 10:8

GRANTED IN 

PART

118/(115-6) Appendix of Exhibits Redactions listed in Dkt. No. 

120 GRANTED

Case 4:16-cv-05326-HSG Document 143 Filed 09/18/18 Page 4 of 7
5

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

No Public Version 

Filed/(122-6)

Plaintiffs’ Opposition 

to Defendants’ 

Motion for Summary 

Judgement

1:25-4:7, 4:8-7:6, 7:7-13, 7:14-

11:16, 13:9-10, 13:11-20, 14:6-

13, 14:14-17, 14:22-24, 15:20-

23, 15:27-28, 16:18-21, 17:5-

20, 18 n.8, 20:1-8, 20:18-22, 

20:25-26:8, 21:16-28, 23:4-7, 

23:19-24:2, 24:15-25:10, 

including n. 10, 25:11-15 

The Court DENIES the motion 

to seal: 4:8-7:6, 13:11-20, 

14:14-17, 15:1-15,16:8-9, 

25:11-15

GRANTED IN 

PART

No Public Version 

Filed/(122-4)

Appendix of Exhibits Vigdor Declaration, Bradway

Declaration, Margulis 

Declaration at 1:21-23, Jacobs 

Declaration at 3:7-4:3, Exhibits: 

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 

13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 25, 26, 

27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 

35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 

45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 52, 56, 57, 

60, 61, 62, 63, 64

The Court DENIES the motion 

to seal Exhibits: 19, 37, 38, 47, 

48, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59

GRANTED IN 

PART

No Public Version 

Filed/(126-4)

Defendants’ 

Opposition to 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Partial Summary 

Judgment

Page 4, lines 17-19 Page 5, 

lines 1-8 & 15-17 Page 8, lines 

16-18 & 22 Page 9, lines 1-11 

Page 13, lines 7 & 26 Page 17, 

lines 24-25 Page 18, lines 1, 18-

21, 23-24 Page 19, lines 1 & 

10-11 Page 20, lines 2-6 & 24 

Page 21, lines 1-2, 12-14, 25-26

The Court DENIES the motion 

to seal: Pages 3, lines 24 & 26 

Page 5, lines 12-14

GRANTED IN 

PART

Entire document 

sealed/(126-5)

Exhibit A to Talarico 

Declaration

Entire document GRANTED

Entire document 

sealed/(126-6)

Exhibit B to Talarico 

Declaration

Entire document GRANTED

No Public Version 

Filed/(126-7)

Exhibit C to Hur 

Declaration

Entire document DENIED (no 

supporting 

declaration)

No Public Version 

Filed/(126-8)

Exhibit D to Hur 

Declaration

Entire document DENIED (no 

supporting 

declaration)

No Public Version 

Filed/(126-9)

Exhibit E to Hur

Declaration

Entire document DENIED (no 

supporting 

Case 4:16-cv-05326-HSG Document 143 Filed 09/18/18 Page 5 of 7
6

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

declaration)

No Public Version 

Filed/(126-10)

Exhibit F to Hur 

Declaration

Entire document DENIED (no 

supporting 

declaration)

Entire document 

sealed/(126-11)

Exhibit G to Timmins 

Declaration

Entire document GRANTED

130-3/(130/4) Defendants Reply in 

Support of Motion for 

Summary Judgment

Page 6, lines 13-15 Page 8, 

lines 13-15 Page 9, lines 3-5 

Page 11, lines 5-8 & 11 Page 

13, lines 26-28 Page 14, lines 4 

& 23 Page 15, lines 10 & 23

GRANTED

No Public Version 

Filed/(130-5)

Exhibit 17 to Allen 

Declaration

Entire document DENIED (no 

supporting 

declaration)

No Public Version 

Filed/(130-6)

Exhibit 18 to Allen 

Declaration

Entire document DENIED (no 

supporting 

declaration)

Entire document 

sealed/(130-7)

Exhibit 19 to Allen 

Declaration

Entire document GRANTED

No Public Version 

Filed/(133-5)

Plaintiffs’ Reply in 

Support of Motion for 

Summary Judgment

Pages 1:18-20, 3:3-5, 3:14-4:5, 

1:18-20, 4:19-21, 6:20-21, 7:7-

9, 7:28-8:3, 8:19-23, 8:24-28, 

9:2-5, 9:17-18, 9:21-25, 9:26-

27, 10:7-8, 11:17-19, 12:22-25 

(n. 5), 13:8-11, 15:13-14

The Court DENIES the motion 

to seal:

7:4, 8:1-4

GRANTED IN 

PART

133-6/(133-7) Supplemental Jacobs 

Declaration

Paragraph 2 GRANTED

Entire document 

sealed/(133-7)

Exhibit 65 Entire document GRANTED

Entire document 

sealed/(133-7)

Exhibit 66 Entire document GRANTED

Entire document 

sealed/(133-7)

Exhibit 67 Entire document GRANTED

140-3/(140-4) Plaintiffs’ Objections 

to Evidence 

Submitted by 

Defendants with Their 

Reply in Support of 

Defendants’ Motion 

for Summary 

Judgment

Pages 1:13-16; 2:1, 2:6-7; 2:9-

10; and 2:12-20

GRANTED

Case 4:16-cv-05326-HSG Document 143 Filed 09/18/18 Page 6 of 7
7

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

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dkt. 

Nos. 80, 92, 112, 115, 122, 126, 130, and 133, and GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 88 and 140. The Court 

DIRECTS the parties to file public versions of all documents for which the proposed sealing has 

been denied and/or for which no public version has been filed, as indicated in the chart above. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative 

motions are granted will remain under seal. The public will have access only to the redacted 

versions accompanying the administrative motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

9/18/2018

Case 4:16-cv-05326-HSG Document 143 Filed 09/18/18 Page 7 of 7