Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02349/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-02349-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 465
Nature of Suit: Other Immigration Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

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

JANE DOE 1, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHAD WOLF, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02349-BLF (VKD)

ORDER GRANTING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 305

In connection with the parties’ discovery dispute concerning de-designation (Dkt. No. 

306), plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file portions of the parties’ joint discovery letter 

brief under seal. Dkt. No. 305. Defendants filed a response pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-

5(e)(1). Dkt. No. 311. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court grants the 

administrative motion, as set forth below. 

There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 

documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only 

“tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 

1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 

38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion 

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

Id. at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80.

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal concerns the parties’ joint discovery letter brief regarding 

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 312 Filed 03/19/20 Page 1 of 2
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

defendants’ designation of certain discovery materials as “Highly Confidential/Attorneys’ Eyes 

Only” or “Confidential.” The underlying discovery dispute does not address the merits of the 

parties’ claims or defenses, but rather whether the Court should order defendants reproduce certain 

documents with a lower level of confidentiality designation. While some or all of the material to 

be sealed may be relevant to the merits of the case, the matters to be decided by the Court are not.

The Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c).

The portions of the joint discovery letter brief sought to be sealed concern material that 

defendants have designated “Highly Confidential/Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or “Confidential” based 

on the law enforcement privilege and possible implications of national security. Whether these 

portions should be sealed is an issue raised in the parties’ discovery dispute, which the Court has 

yet to resolve. Accordingly, the Court grants plaintiffs’ administrative motion and permits sealing 

of the following materials:

Document Portion to be Sealed

Joint Discovery Letter 

Brief re DeDesignation (Dkt. No. 

206)

Page 4, line 36

Page 5, lines 1-3, 22, 30-31 

Page 6, lines 1, 27 

Page 7, lines 3, 9, 10-11, 19-20, 22-25, 26, 31-

32, 33, 37-38, 40-41, 41-42, 44 

Page 8, lines 3-4, 4-5 

Page 9, line 31 

Page 10, lines 8-9, 17-19 

Page 11, lines 1, 16-18, 22, 28-29, 33, 34-35, 

footnote 8 

Page 12, lines 9-10, 10-11, 11, 13-14, 16, 17, 

20, 21, 28, 29-30, 30, 32, 32-33, footnote 13 

Page 13, lines 4-5, 8-9, 10-11, 13, 15, 18, 18-19, 

19-20, 22-23, 32- 33, 34, 35-36, 37, 42-43 

Page 14, lines 4-6, 7-8, footnote 15, footnote 16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19, 2020

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:18-cv-02349-BLF Document 312 Filed 03/19/20 Page 2 of 2