Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05966/USCOURTS-cand-4_13-cv-05966-21/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

SUSAN HUNT,

Plaintiff,

v.

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-05966-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 222

Pending before the Court is Defendant Continental Casualty Company’s administrative 

motion to file under seal its offer of proof regarding the testimony and notes of Dr. Shirley 

McNeal, and exhibits A, B, C, D, and E attached thereto. Dkt. No. 222. No opposition to the 

motion to seal was filed, and the time to do so has passed.

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 (1978)). “[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, 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 

Case 4:13-cv-05966-HSG Document 241 Filed 11/16/15 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

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 Defendant’s offer of proof is a nondispositive filing, the Court applies the “good 

cause” standard to Defendant’s motion to seal.

Case 4:13-cv-05966-HSG Document 241 Filed 11/16/15 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

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant seeks to seal the entirety of its offer of proof, as well as the entirety of exhibits 

A-E attached thereto. Dkt. No. 222-1 ¶ 2. Defendant moves to seal the exhibits attached to the 

offer of proof because those documents were all designated as “Confidential” by Plaintiff under 

the parties’ protective order. Id. Plaintiff did not file a declaration within four days of the filing of 

Defendant’s motion to seal establishing that all of the designated material is sealable, as required 

by Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). Nevertheless, in the interest of efficiency, the Court finds that good 

cause exists to seal the exhibits attached to Defendant’s offer of proof, in light of the Court’s 

September 14, 2015 Order sealing similar exhibits under the “compelling reasons” standard. See

Dkt. No. 142. Furthermore, the Court finds that Defendant’s request to seal exhibits A-E is 

“narrowly tailored” to seal only sealable material, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. 

However, the Court finds that Defendant’s request to seal the entirety of its offer of proof 

is not narrowly tailored to seal only sealable material. While those portions of the offer of proof 

that directly quote or summarize the contents of the sealed exhibits should be redacted, the Court 

finds that good cause does not exist to seal the remainder of the filing. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal with respect to exhibits A, B, 

C, D, and E to Defendant’s offer of proof regarding the testimony and notes of Dr. Shirley 

McNeal. The Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to seal as to the offer of proof itself. Defendant

shall file a revised motion to seal its offer of proof that seeks to redact only those portions of the 

filing that contain sealable material by November 18, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:13-cv-05966-HSG Document 241 Filed 11/16/15 Page 3 of 3