Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00337/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00337-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER DOE, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-00337-JLT-CDB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

RELATED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES AND 

COSTS

(Docs. 12, 13)

7-DAY DEADLINE

Background

On February 7, 2024, Plaintiffs initiated this action with the filing of a complaint in the 

Superior Court of the State of California, County of Madera. See (Doc. 1). On March 21, 2024, 

Defendants removed the action to this Court. See id. The parties filed a joint notice of settlement 

on September 19, 2024. (Doc. 10).

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ request to seal documents related to counsel’s motion 

for attorney’s fees. (Docs. 12, 13). Plaintiffs’ counsel provides no authority and cites no cases for 

the proposition that the documents she lodged with the Court should be sealed. Upon review, the 

documents appear to be attorney billing records. The only justification put forward for sealing 

these records is that the “itemization includes information about Plaintiff’s Counsel’s research and 

writing and client communications. This information is necessary for the Court to evaluate the 

reasonableness of the fees and costs sought in this matter, but they are not proper for filing on a 

Case 1:24-cv-00337-JLT-CDB Document 18 Filed 11/21/24 Page 1 of 4
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

public docket.” (Doc. 12 at 1-2). 

Legal Standard

Under the First Amendment, the press and the public have a presumed right of access to 

court proceedings and documents. See generally Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 

501, 510 (1985); Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2016); cf. Olympic Ref. Co. v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 264 (9th Cir. 1964) (“In the federal judicial 

system trial and pretrial proceedings are ordinarily to be conducted in public.”). As a general rule, 

the public is permitted ‘access to litigation documents and information produced during 

discovery.’” In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 

2011) (quoting Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F. 3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002) and citing San 

Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)). This presumed 

right can be overcome if (1) closure serves a compelling interest; (2) there is a substantial 

probability that, in the absence of closure, this compelling interest would be harmed; and (3) there 

are no alternatives to closure that would adequately protect the compelling interest. Oregonian 

Publishing Co., 920 F.2d at 1466 (citing Press Enterprise, 464 U.S. at 510).

Where, as here, the documents that the applicant seeks to seal relate to a non-dispositive 

motion, the applicant must satisfy a “good cause” standard by making a “particularized showing” 

that “specific prejudice or harm” will result should the information be disclosed. Foltz, 331 F.3d 

at 1131. Broad and unsupported allegations will fall short. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir.1992).

Discussion

A motion for attorney’s fees is not a dispositive motion. See U.S. ex rel. Shutt v. Cmty. 

Home & Health Care Servs., Inc., 550 F.3d 764, 766 (9th Cir.2008) (“The determination of the 

relator's share of an FCA award, like the award of attorney’s fees, raises factual issues ‘collateral 

to the main action’ because it involves a factual inquiry distinct from one addressing the merits.’”)

(quoting Int'l Assoc. of Bridge Local Union 75 v. Madison Indus., Inc., 733 F.2d 656, 659 (9th Cir.

1984)); e.g., Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. 12–1971, 2015 WL 604055, at 1 

(N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015) (“The documents sought to be filed under seal in this case are related to 

Case 1:24-cv-00337-JLT-CDB Document 18 Filed 11/21/24 Page 2 of 4
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

3

motions for attorneys’ fees, a non-dispositive motion.”).

The Court has considered the reasons advanced by Plaintiffs in their notice of motion to 

seal in the light of the factors set forth in Oregonian Publ’g Co. and concludes those reasons do not 

compellingly outweigh the strong presumption in favor of access to public records. See, e.g.,

Muench Photography, Inc. v. Pearson Educ., Inc., No. 12–1927, 2013 WL 6698465, at 2 (N.D.

Cal.2013). Generally, attorney billing records will not be sealed absent a showing of specific 

prejudice or harm. See, e.g., Grouse River Outfitters Ltd. v. Oracle Corp., No. 16-cv-02954-LB, 

2019 WL 8752333, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2019) (“Oracle has not shown ‘good cause’ for sealing 

its counsel's billing rates and invoices.”); Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 13-cv-04700-

EMC, 2016 WL 1252778, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2016) (“[T]he number of hours spent litigating 

a case and billing rates are not considered proprietary information.”); Muench Photography, Inc. v. 

Pearson Educ., Inc., No. 12-cv-01927-WHO, 2013 WL 6698465, at 2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013) 

(“[T]he Court is unclear how disclosure of mundane descriptions of typical attorney tasks, such as 

‘review and revise documents and reports’ or ‘confer with [attorney] re: same and collection and 

production of documents,’ even taken as a whole, reveals sensitive information or confidential 

litigation strategy.”); Ferrington v. McAfee, Inc., No. 10-cv-01455-LHK, 2013 WL 3814474, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. July 22, 2013) (“The Court has reviewed counsel's descriptions, and none of these 

descriptions reveal confidential litigation strategy.”).

Upon review, the billing records lodged by Plaintiff’s counsel do not appear to warrant 

different treatment. Plaintiffs’ counsel only claims, generally, that the documents include “research 

and writing and client communications” and that such information is “not proper for filing on a 

public docket.” (Doc. 12 at 1-2). Counsel has made no particularized showing of specific harm. 

Additionally, a review of the lodged documents suggests no clear indication of any such specific 

harm.

///

///

///

///

Case 1:24-cv-00337-JLT-CDB Document 18 Filed 11/21/24 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED, Plaintiffs’ request to file the documents under seal

(Docs. 12, 13) is DENIED.

And it is FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file on the docket any motion for 

attorney’s fees and all supporting documents within seven (7) days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00337-JLT-CDB Document 18 Filed 11/21/24 Page 4 of 4