Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02285/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02285-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

Case No.14-CV-02285-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

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

ADAM BACKHAUT, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.14-cv-02285-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 50, 59, 75, 78

Before the Court are administrative motions to seal brought by Plaintiffs Adam Backhaut 

and Ken Morris, ECF Nos. 50, 59, 78 and by Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Apple”), 

ECF No. 75. The parties seek to seal briefing and exhibits filed by the parties in connection with 

Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, ECF No. 50. 

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 

Case 5:14-cv-02285-LHK Document 90 Filed 08/14/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No.14-CV-02285-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

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

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, 447 

F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records 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 secret.” 

Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 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. Dispositive motions include “motions 

for summary judgment.” Id.

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).

In general, motions for class certification are considered nondispositive. See In re HighTech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 5486230, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 

2013) (“As Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is a non-dispositive motion, the Court finds 

that the parties need only demonstrate ‘good cause’ in order to support their requests to seal.”). 

The Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard to the parties’ requests.

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 

documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, 

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit has 

Case 5:14-cv-02285-LHK Document 90 Filed 08/14/15 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No.14-CV-02285-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

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

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[a] 

trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is 

used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over 

competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972) 

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the 

production of goods. . . . It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the 

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that sealing 

may be justified to prevent judicial documents from being used “as sources of business 

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established 

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request 

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or 

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be narrowly 

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Id.

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed order that 

is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format each 

document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of the 

document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document 

that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1). “Within 4 days of the filing 

of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as 

required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 

Id. R. 79-5(e)(1).

Below, the Court applies the “good cause” standard to the parties’ requests to seal 

documents in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. With this standard in mind, 

the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

Case 5:14-cv-02285-LHK Document 90 Filed 08/14/15 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No.14-CV-02285-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

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

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

50 Good 

Cause Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Class Certification

DENIED without prejudice as the requests are 

not narrowly tailored.

50 Good 

Cause Declaration of Joshua 

Ezrin in support of motion 

for class certification, 

Exhs. B, E, F, G, M, O, P, 

Q, R, T, U, X, Z, AA, BB

DENIED without prejudice as the requests are 

not narrowly tailored. The Court will not seal 

entire documents that contain non-sealable 

information. Any renewed request shall 

conform to Civil Local Rule 79-5 and provide 

proposed redactions with highlighting.

75 Good 

Cause Defendant’s Opposition DENIED without prejudice as the requests are not narrowly tailored.

75 Good 

Cause Declaration of Tiffany 

Cheung, Exhs. 1, 4–7, 9, 

11, 19

DENIED without prejudice as the requests are 

not narrowly tailored. The Court will not seal 

entire documents that contain non-sealable 

information. Any renewed request shall 

conform to Civil Local Rule 79-5 and provide 

proposed redactions with highlighting.

75 Good 

Cause Declaration of Jeffrey 

Kohlman, Exhs. 1–5

DENIED without prejudice as Defendant has 

failed to make a particularized showing of 

specific harm or prejudice that would result if 

these records were disclosed.

78 Good 

Cause Plaintiffs’ Reply DENIED without prejudice as the requests are not narrowly tailored.

78 Good 

Cause Declaration of Joshua 

Ezrin, Exhs. A–B

DENIED without prejudice as the requests are 

not narrowly tailored. The Court will not seal 

entire documents that contain non-sealable 

information. Any renewed request shall 

conform to Civil Local Rule 79-5 and provide 

proposed redactions with highlighting.

The parties’ requests to seal are overbroad and include the sealing of public information 

contained within public documents in this case. The Court will not seal entire documents that 

contain both sealable and non-sealable information. The parties are cautioned that a showing of 

“good cause” requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if

the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd, 307 F.3d at 1210–11. Any renewed 

sealing motions shall be filed within 7 days.

Case 5:14-cv-02285-LHK Document 90 Filed 08/14/15 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No.14-CV-02285-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 14, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02285-LHK Document 90 Filed 08/14/15 Page 5 of 5