Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05463/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05463-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AT&T MOBILITY II, LLC, a Delaware

limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CAROLYN PESTANO, an individual,

Defendant. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 07-05463 WHA

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SEAL

Plaintiff moves to dismiss claims under FRCP 12(b)(6). “If matters outside the

pleadings are considered, [a] motion to dismiss is to be treated as one for summary judgment.” 

San Pedro Hotel Co ., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 477 (9th Cir.1998). As

plaintiff’s motion depends on matters outside of the pleadings it will be treated as a motion for

summary judgment.

Plaintiff’s request to file documents under seal is DENIED. In Kamakana v. Honolulu,

447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed,

“compelling reasons” are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as

compelling reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial. 

Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be unduly

compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed on summary judgment

motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant first shows a “compelling reason,” a

Case 3:07-cv-05463-WHA Document 31 Filed 02/04/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

substantially higher standard than “good cause.” Only social security numbers, names of

juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling nature

(like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom would not be closed

for the information, nor should any summary judgment proceedings, which are, in effect, a

substitute for trial.

Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden. In their motion to seal, plaintiff has listed five

documents to be filed under seal. Plaintiff has given no “compelling reason” for any of the

documents to be filed under seal by showing the courtroom would be closed if such documents

were introduced as evidence. Most of the documents have been shown to already be a part of

the public record indicating plaintiff has made little effort to particularize its request. For the

foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s request is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05463-WHA Document 31 Filed 02/04/08 Page 2 of 2