Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02989/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02989-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL WITH PREJUDICE

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WILLIAM PHILIPS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

WITH PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 94

On December 17, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal 

documents designated as confidential by Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) by the parties’ 

stipulated protective order. ECF No. 94. These documents were filed in connection with

Plaintiffs’ opposition to Ford’s motion to dismiss on the basis of prudential mootness, primary 

jurisdiction, and lack of standing. ECF No. 84. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), Plaintiffs noted in their administrative motion that, 

“within four (4) days of this filing[,] Ford must file with the Court, and serve Plaintiffs with, a 

declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable.” Id. at 2.1 Moreover, “[i]f 

 

1

See Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1) (“Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File 

Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of the designated 

material is sealable.”).

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 106 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL WITH PREJUDICE

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

Ford does not file their responsive declaration as required by this subsection, the documents and 

information Plaintiffs are herein requesting be filed under seal may be made part of the public 

record in their entirety.” Id.

Ford has not filed a responsive declaration, and the deadline to file such a declaration has 

now passed. In addition, none of the materials filed by Plaintiffs is sealable. As the Ninth Circuit 

recently observed, parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than 

tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 

F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling 

reasons supported by specific factual findings” that outweigh the general history of access and the 

public policies favoring disclosure, Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–

79 (9th Cir. 2006). Ford’s motion to dismiss is more than tangentially related to the underlying 

cause of action: the gist of Ford’s motion is that a government-supervised recall renders moot 

Plaintiffs’ claims because the recall provides Plaintiffs the relief that Plaintiffs seek. 

Thus, following Center for Auto Safety and Kamakana, Ford must give compelling reasons 

that justify the sealing of court records. With respect to the compelling reasons standard, the 

Ninth Circuit has stated that compelling reasons generally 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 

(internal quotation marks omitted). However, “[t]he 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.

Here, Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal includes emails between Ford and 

Ford’s suppliers, as well as the deposition testimony of Jeffrey Williams, a Ford engineer. None 

of this information meets the compelling reasons standard, and therefore none of this information 

is sealable. Indeed, in connection with Ford’s reply, Ford in fact has submitted—unsealed—

portions of Williams’ deposition testimony. ECF No. 97-3. Moreover, Ford’s reply refers—

without redaction—to some of the emails included in Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file 

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 106 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL WITH PREJUDICE

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

under seal. See, e.g., ECF No. 97 at 3.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal is DENIED with 

prejudice. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), Plaintiffs are hereby directed to “file [all] 

document[s] in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, after the” filing 

of this Order. Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 106 Filed 02/22/16 Page 3 of 3