Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03793/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-03793-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Review Agency Decision

---

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

ALFREDO LOPEZ, D/B/A AZTECA 

MARKET,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-03793-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 41, 44

On June 19, 2015, Plaintiff Alfredo Lopez, d/b/a Azteca Market, filed an administrative 

motion to file under seal portions of his motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 41. Defendant 

United States of America does not oppose Plaintiff’s motion to seal. Dkt. No. 41-2.

On June 25, 2015, Defendant filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of 

its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and portions of its own motion for 

summary judgment. Dkt. No. 44. Plaintiff does not oppose Defendant’s motion to seal. Dkt. No. 

44-2.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives 

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

records and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7). “[A] ‘strong presumption in 

favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th 

Cir. 2003)). To overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record 

related to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual 

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, 

Case 4:13-cv-03793-HSG Document 47 Filed 07/06/15 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

such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” 

Id. at 1178-79 (internal citations, 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 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The 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.

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 it decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. Civil Local Rule 

79-5 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file 

a document or portions of it 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).

Records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong presumption of 

access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to nondispositive 

motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,” 

parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179–80 (internal quotation marks omitted). 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) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad 

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not 

suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

Because the parties’ motions for summary judgment are dispositive motions, the Court 

Case 4:13-cv-03793-HSG Document 47 Filed 07/06/15 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

applies the “compelling reasons” standard to the parties’ motions to file these documents under 

seal.

II. DISCUSSION

On May 5, 2015, the Court ordered that certain portions of the administrative record that

relate to confidential techniques used and analysis conducted by the United States Department of 

Agriculture to investigate food stamp trafficking be sealed. See Dkt. No. 38. In the pending 

motions to seal, the parties argue that the “compelling reasons” standard is met here because the 

portions of the documents sought to be sealed reference already-sealed information in the 

administrative record. Dkt. No. 41 at 3; Dkt. No. 44 at 2. The Court agrees that the redacted 

portions of the parties’ briefing related to the motions for summary judgment contain sealable 

material. The Court further finds that the proposed redactions are “narrowly tailored” to seal only 

sealable material, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. The Court therefore GRANTS Plaintiff’s 

motion to seal pages iii:13-14, iv:13-15, 6:8-9, 6:15-20, 6:26-27, 7:1, 7:5-12, 8:17-26, 8:27, 9:1-8, 

10:17-23, 10:27, 11:1-15, 11:19-27, 12:1-27, 13:1-8, 13:11-12, 13:16, 13:23-27, 14:1-17, 14:18, 

14:20-27, 15:1-18, 15:21-26, 16:1-27, 17:1-17, 17:19-23, 18:4-6, 18:7, 18:9-15, 18:17-20, 18:25-

28, 19:2-4, 22:4-7, 22:23-24, 22:26-27, 23:1-2, 24:3-5, and 23:14-15 of Plaintiff’s motion for 

summary judgment. The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal pages 3:4-5:4, 5:21-6:2, 

9:17, 9:20-25, 13:4, and 13:14-24 of Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment and motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-03793-HSG Document 47 Filed 07/06/15 Page 3 of 3