Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02250/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02250-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1681 Fair Credit Reporting Act

---

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

JAMES BANNECK,

Plaintiff,

v.

HSBC BANK USA, N.A., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-02250-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

Re. Dkt. No. 45

Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (“Experian”) has filed an administrative 

motion to seal several exhibits attached to the Declaration of Douglas L. Clark (Dkt. No. 48) filed 

in connection with its motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. No. 46). Dkt. No. 45. Experian 

contends that these exhibits contain private financial and personal information regarding Plaintiff 

James Banneck and a mortgage application he filed that is at issue in its partial summary judgment 

motion. Dkt. No. 45 at 3-4. Experian also contends that these exhibits should be sealed because 

they contain proprietary and confidential information about non-party Fannie Mae’s and its own

business practices. Id.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Civil Local Rules 79-5(d) and 7-11, a party may seek leave to file documents under 

seal by filing an administrative motion, a declaration establishing that the documents are sealable, 

and redacted and unredacted versions of the documents. When a movant seeks to file documents 

under seal in connection with a dispositive motion, a strong presumption in favor of public access 

applies, and the movant must state “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure[.]” Kamakana 

v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotations marks and 

Case 4:15-cv-02250-HSG Document 66 Filed 06/20/16 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

citations omitted). But when a movant seeks to file documents under seal in connection with a 

motion that is only “tangentially related to the merits of a case,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 

Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), “the usual presumption of the public’s right of 

access is rebutted,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. “The application of a strong presumption of 

access to sealed records, not directly relevant to the merits of the case, would eviscerate the broad 

power of the district court to fashion protective orders.” Id. at 1180 (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). For that reason, “a particularized showing . . . under the good cause standard of 

Rule 26(c) will suffice[] to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to 

non-dispositive motions.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; brackets original). 

“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). 

Additionally, under Civil Local Rules 79-5(e) and 7-11, a party seeking to file a document 

designated as confidential by another party under a protective order must file an administrative 

motion and declaration identifying the document or portions thereof which contain the designated, 

confidential material. The submitting party must serve the declaration on the designating party on 

the same day it is filed and file proof of such service. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). Within four days of 

filing the sealing motion, the designating party must file a declaration compliant with Local Rule 

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable under Local Rule 79-5(b). 

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). If the designating party does not file a responsive declaration as required and 

the sealing motion is accordingly denied, the submitting party may file the document in the public 

record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, after the motion is denied. Civ. L.R. 79-

5(e)(2). Courts may delay public docketing upon a showing of good cause. Id.

When courts in this district find that documents contain sealable information, a motion to 

seal must still be “narrowly tailored” such that only sealable information is redacted from public 

access. Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). The failure to narrowly tailor a proposed sealing order will result in a 

denial of the sealing motion, subject to renewal and revision only at the Court’s discretion.

II. DISCUSSION

Experian requests to seal documents that it contends are sealable, as well as documents that 

Case 4:15-cv-02250-HSG Document 66 Filed 06/20/16 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

a third party has designated as confidential under a protective order. The documents that Experian 

contends are sealable include: (1) Banneck’s complete credit report; (2) Banneck’s debts and 

personal identifying information; and (3) Fannie Mae’s automated analysis of Banneck’s mortgage 

application, which includes Banneck’s home address, income, credit scores, and debts. Dkt. Nos. 

45 at 4 & 45-1, Exs. A-C. Experian is correct that confidential, personal financial information is 

sealable. See Transperfect Global, Inc. v. MotionPoint Corp., No. C 10-2590, 2014 WL 4950082, 

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014). Mortgage documents containing sensitive personal information 

are also sealable. See Lane v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. C 12-04026, 2013 WL 2627487, at *1 

(N.D. Cal. Jun. 11, 2013). Accordingly, the Court grants the motion to seal on those bases.1

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Experian’s administrative motion to seal. 

The documents filed under seal will remain under seal. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2016

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1 Because the documents are sealable on these bases, the Court need not reach the alternative 

argument that the documents contain confidential information of Fannie Mae or Experian, and no 

party has satisfied the requirements of Local Rule 79-5(e) as to this second ground. 

Case 4:15-cv-02250-HSG Document 66 Filed 06/20/16 Page 3 of 3