Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02390/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02390-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

1

Case No. 13-CV-02390-LHK 

ORDER RE: AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

LINCOLN JONES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-CV-02390-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING AMENDED 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 226

Previously before the Court were three administrative sealing motions (ECF Nos. 153, 172, 

and 194) filed in connection with Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 154), 

Plaintiffs’ Opposition thereto (ECF No. 172-6), and Defendant’s Reply (ECF No. 195). On May 

8, 2015, this Court granted-in-part and denied-in-part these sealing motions, and for the motions 

denied without prejudice, allowed the parties to file renewed motions to seal consistent with the 

Court’s Order within seven days. ECF No. 213.

On May 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended administrative motion to file under seal. 

ECF No. 226. This motion seeks to seal narrower portions of certain documents, consistent with 

the Court’s May 8 Order. Id. In support of this motion, Defendant and the California Department 

of Insurance filed declarations explaining why the redacted portions of these documents should be 

Case 5:13-cv-02390-LHK Document 235 Filed 05/27/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 13-CV-02390-LHK 

ORDER RE: AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

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

filed under seal. See ECF No. 220, 227, and 228.

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. 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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong 

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1178-79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records generally 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 secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he 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. Dispositive motions 

include “motions for summary judgment.” Id.

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established 

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or 

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be 

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-

5(d).” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed 

order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format 

each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of 

the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the 

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1). “Within 4 days of 

the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a 

Case 5:13-cv-02390-LHK Document 235 Filed 05/27/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 13-CV-02390-LHK 

ORDER RE: AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

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 as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material 

is sealable.” Id. R. 79-5(e)(1).

With these standards in mind, and based upon the submissions of the parties, the Court 

hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Amended Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2015 ______________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02390-LHK Document 235 Filed 05/27/15 Page 3 of 3