Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-02777/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-02777-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

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

STEVEN INGRAM,

Plaintiff,

v.

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-02777-JST 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: ECF No. 197

Plaintiff Steven Ingram moves to file under seal several documents in connection with his 

opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 197. Defendants have filed a 

response to the motion, supported by two declarations. ECF Nos. 198, 199, 200. The Court 

hereby denies the motion.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local 

Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all court 

documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v. 

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotations 

omitted).

With respect to the first prong, Local Rule 79-5 requires a request that (1) “establishes that 

the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled 

to protection under the law”; and (2) is “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable 

material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). An administrative motion to seal must also fulfill the requirements 

of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to 

designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or 

portions thereof, are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

Case 3:12-cv-02777-JST Document 207 Filed 04/06/15 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

With respect to the second prong, the showing required for overcoming the strong 

presumption of access depends on the type of motion to which the document is attached. When a 

party seeks to file materials in connection with a dispositive motion, like the summary judgment 

motion here, the presumption can be overcome only if the party presents “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 (internal citation omitted).

When the party who files the motion to seal is not the party who has designated the 

information or documents at issue confidential, the designating party must file a declaration in 

support of sealing within four days of the filing of the motion to seal. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). That 

declaration must explain how the documents meet the standard for sealing (i.e., here, the 

compelling reasons standard). Id.

A district court must “articulate [the] . . . reasoning or findings underlying its decision to 

seal.” Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 S. Ct. 

2374 (2012).

II. DISCUSSION

“‘[C]ompelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and 

justify sealing court records 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 secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting 

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).

Here, Defendants’ declarations filed in response to Plaintiff’s motion to seal do not 

establish that any of the documents that Plaintiff has submitted as subject to the parties’ protective 

order, and that Defendants have designated as confidential, are subject to sealing. See ECF Nos. 

199, 200. In fact, Defendants’ response to the motion to seal explains that “almost all” of the 

documents Plaintiff has sought to file under seal are documents “that are not required to be filed 

under seal,” and much of Defendants’ response is dedicated to explaining why the documents 

should not be sealed. See ECF No. 198. Because Defendants have not explained why the 

documents Plaintiff identified as having been designated confidential and/or subject to the parties’ 

Case 3:12-cv-02777-JST Document 207 Filed 04/06/15 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

protective order should be sealed, the Court finds that Defendants, the designating parties, have 

not identified compelling reasons justifying the sealing of those documents.1

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal is hereby 

denied. Plaintiff “may file the document[s] in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later 

than 10 days, after” the entry of this order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). If Plaintiff does not file the 

documents in the public record, the Court will not consider them. See id., subsection (f)(2).

The hearing date and briefing schedule on the underlying motion shall remain as originally 

set.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

 

1

In Defendants’ response to Plaintiff’s motion to seal, Defendants also ask the Court to strike one 

late-filed deposition excerpt that Plaintiff intends to rely on in support of its opposition to the

motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 198 at 3, 5 (referring to Exhibit G to Plaintiff’s 

motion to seal). The Court will deny this request for several reasons: the request was not 

submitted to the Court as a formal request for relief; the deposition excerpt spans only four and a 

half pages of testimony and though Defendants assert that the late submission of this document 

prejudices them, they have not explained how it does so; and the deposition at issue was not 

completed until nine days before Plaintiff’s opposition was due.

Case 3:12-cv-02777-JST Document 207 Filed 04/06/15 Page 3 of 3