Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02792/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-02792-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

GIORGIO ENEA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-cv-02792-HSG 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 74

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file documents under seal. 

Dkt. No. 74. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s administrative 

motion.

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 & Cty. 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 (quotations 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 (quotations

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 

Case 4:18-cv-02792-HSG Document 83 Filed 02/19/20 Page 1 of 3
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

vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 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 must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 

(quotations omitted). This requires 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

Plaintiff seeks to file under seal Exhibits 1 and 3 attached to his opposition to Defendant’s 

motion for summary judgment and portions in his opposition that reference the exhibits. Dkt. No. 

74. The only proffered justification for sealing is that the information was designated as 

“Confidential” by Defendant. Id. But a designation of confidentiality is not sufficient to establish 

that a document is sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Confidential” is merely the parties’ 

initial designation of confidentiality to establish coverage under the stipulated protective order. 

Case 4:18-cv-02792-HSG Document 83 Filed 02/19/20 Page 2 of 3
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

See Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-cv-05501-SI, 2015 WL 5117083, at 

*5 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015) (“But good cause ‘cannot be established simply by showing that the

document is subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is 

considered to be confidential’”) (quoting Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, No. 09-cv-4147, 2011 WL 

482767, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011)). Thus, Plaintiff’s motion does not comply with Civil 

Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A). In addition, as the designating party for the materials, Defendant did 

not comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), because it did not file a declaration within four days 

of Plaintiff’s motion. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal. 

III. CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal, Dkt. No. 74, and

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

been denied within seven days of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/19/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:18-cv-02792-HSG Document 83 Filed 02/19/20 Page 3 of 3