Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03504/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03504-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

CHRISTOPHER CORCORAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

 vs. 

CVS HEALTH CORPORATION AND CVS

PHARMACY, INC., 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 15-CV-3504 YGR

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 73, 76 

On January 15, 2016, Plaintiffs1 filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of 

their oppositions to Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 73.) On February 12, 2016, 

Defendants similarly filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of CVS Health’s 

reply in support of its motion to dismiss, and exhibits submitted in connection therewith. (Dkt. No. 

76.) Here, both administrative motions concern information designated as confidential by 

Defendants. Defendants thus bear the burden to demonstrate why the information should be sealed. 

Given the dispositive nature of Defendants’ motions, they must demonstrate “compelling reasons” 

that overcome the public’s right to view public records and documents including judicial records. 

Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 

The Court finds Defendants met their burden with respect to only two sets of proposed 

redactions: Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Second Moffatt Declaration (Dkt. Nos. 77-6, 77-7 as amended at 

Dkt. Nos. 89-1, 89-2). The showing with respect to the other requests, by contrast, is not sufficient 

under the applicable “compelling reasons” standard. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion with respect 

to Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Second Moffatt Declaration is GRANTED. The administrative motions to 

file under seal are otherwise DENIED. 

 1

 All terms shall have the same meaning as defined in the Court’s Order on Defendants’ 

underlying motions to dismiss entered via separate order this same day. 

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 97 Filed 03/14/16 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 

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 73, 76. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 14, 2016 

 _______________________________________ 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-03504-YGR Document 97 Filed 03/14/16 Page 2 of 2