Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01129/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01129-40/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:53(b) - Prelim &amp; Perm Inj Relief &amp; other Equitable Relief

---

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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTV, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-01129-HSG

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 177, 184, 187-88, 191, 194-95, 

197

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and DIRECTV, Inc. (“DIRECTV”) have both 

filed various administrative motions (including a supplemental administrative motion) seeking to 

seal portions of the briefs and exhibits relating to the FTC’s motion for partial summary judgment. 

See Dkt. Nos. 177, 184, 187-88, 191, 194-95, 197. The FTC has opposed several of these 

administrative motions. See Dkt. Nos. 190, 193, 199. Pursuant to the Court’s order, Dkt. No. 208, 

the parties filed a jointly prepared chart listing all portions of documents sought to be sealed, the 

asserted grounds for sealing, and if applicable, the asserted grounds for opposition, Dkt. No. 212-

1. The parties represented that the jointly prepared chart sets forth the current status of all 

requested redactions. Dkt. No. 212. Having carefully considered each of the requested redactions, 

the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the administrative motions to seal.

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, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard 

derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 

judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” 

Case 4:15-cv-01129-HSG Document 214 Filed 11/26/16 Page 1 of 4
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

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To overcome this 

strong presumption, the moving party 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.” Id. at 1178-79 

(citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations 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 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 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 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. (citations, brackets, and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 

to file 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).

Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a 

case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must 

meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 

1097. The “good cause” standard 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) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

II. DISCUSSION

Here, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard because the documents at issue 

Case 4:15-cv-01129-HSG Document 214 Filed 11/26/16 Page 2 of 4
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

have more than a tangential relation to the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 

1101. The Court finds that the requested redactions in the jointly prepared chart at Dkt. No. 212-1

all satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard, on the grounds listed in column 6 (“Asserted 

Grounds for Sealing”)—except for those listed in the chart below.

Document

Dkt. No. 

(Unredacted 

Version)

Jt. Chart Pg.

No. (Dkt. No. 

212-1)

Portions of Document for Which

Sealing is DENIED

Ortiz Decl., Ex. A (Bentley Dep.) 187-15 2 136:13-22

Ortiz Decl., Ex. B (Chen Dep.) 187-16 3 69:15-20

Ortiz Decl., Ex. C (Filipiak Dep.) 187-17 4 81:6-7

Ortiz Decl., Ex. D (Friedman 

Dep.)

187-18 5 67:11-68:9, 69:11-16

86:8-24, 100:17-104:3, 183:14-184:6

Ortiz Decl., Ex. E (Hause Dep.) 187-19 5 41:2-9

Ortiz Decl., Ex. F (Leever Dep.) 187-20 7 143:1-144:15, 189:1-191:14

Ortiz Decl., Ex. G (Patel Dep.) 187-21 8 205:1-18, 206:6-14

Ortiz Decl., Ex. H (Poling-Hiraldo 

Dep.)

187-22 8 57:1-60-11, 83:2-84:25

Ortiz Decl., Ex. P (Dep. Ex. 319) 177-34 11 Entirety

Ortiz Decl., Ex. T (Dep. Ex. 706) 177-40 11 Entirety

Ortiz Decl., Ex. U (Dep. Ex. 720) 177-42 11 Entirety

FTC’s Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment

177-4, 187-14 11-12 1:23-25, 13:7-18

Sandrock Decl., Ex. E (Friedman 

Dep.)

188-14, 197-

20

13 253:9-254:15

Sandrock Decl., Ex. F (Stinson 

Dep.)

188-16 13-14 193:1-195:4, 198:20-200:25, 205:1-

206:5, 206:16-209:18, 210:2-211:22, 

212:8-9, 212:20-25.

Friedman Decl. (Oct. 6, 2015) 188-27 15 2:6-12, 2:25-3:13

DIRECTV’s Opposition to FTC’s 

Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment

188-4 15 17:16-18

Ortiz II Decl., Ex. MM (Hause 

Dep.)

197-15 17 117:3

Ortiz II Decl., Ex. QQ (May 13, 

2010 CID Letter)

195-11 18 Entirety

Ortiz II Decl., Ex. RR (June 9, 

2010 CID Letter)

195-13 18 Entirety

Ortiz II Decl., Ex. SS (July 2, 

2010 CID Letter)

195-15 18 1, 4-8 (from subsection “8.” onward)

Ortiz II Decl., Ex. UU (April 6, 

2011 CID Letter)

195-19 18 1

FTC’s Reply in Support of Motion 

for Partial Summary Judgment

197-12 19 7:4-7

Sealing is inappropriate for the portions of the documents listed above, but is appropriate 

for all other portions of documents listed in the jointly prepared chart at Dkt. No. 212-1. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motions to seal with respect to the

Case 4:15-cv-01129-HSG Document 214 Filed 11/26/16 Page 3 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

portions of documents listed in the chart above. The Court GRANTS the motions to seal with 

respect to all the other portions of documents listed in the jointly prepared chart at Dkt. No. 212-1. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3), the parties must, within 7 days, file revised redacted 

versions of the documents listed in the chart above (except for the five documents for which the 

motions to seal were denied as to the entire document).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-01129-HSG Document 214 Filed 11/26/16 Page 4 of 4