Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02200/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-02200-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

MARTIN SCHNEIDER, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02200-HSG 

ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 181

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal 

documents in support of its motion to decertify the classes. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s 

motion for the reasons described below. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 

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

v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 

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

and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 

access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 

strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached 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 (quotations

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 

Case 4:16-cv-02200-HSG Document 223 Filed 02/20/20 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

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 (quoting Nixon v. 

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “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 its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. 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 must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 

(quotations omitted). This 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); see also 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) (quotation omitted).

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant’s filings in connection with its motion to decertify the classes are more than 

tangentially related to the underlying cause of action, so the Court applies the “compelling 

reasons” standard. 

The current sealing requests seek to seal information that contain confidential business and 

financial information relating to the operations of Defendant, including sensitive marketing 

information. Dkt. No. 181; Dkt. No. 181-1 at ¶¶ 3–15. The Court previously granted some of the 

Case 4:16-cv-02200-HSG Document 223 Filed 02/20/20 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

sealing requests seeking to seal materially identical information. See Dkt. No. 134. 

The Court did not rely on any of the documents that are the subject of Defendant’s 

administrative motion to seal, given that the parties filed a notice of settlement and joint 

stipulation to vacate all dates before the hearing on Defendant’s motion to decertify the classes. 

Dkt. Nos. 193, 195. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public’s understanding of the 

judicial proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is 

minimal given that the Court will not rule on Defendant’s motion to decertify the classes. See In 

re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 

25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in accessing these documents is even further diminished in light 

of the fact that the Court will not have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class 

Certification.”). Accordingly, because the documents divulge confidential business and financial

information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the 

Court finds that there is compelling reason to file the documents under seal. See Economus v. City 

& Cty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 

2019) (finding compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulges sensitive 

information no longer related to the case); In re iPhone, 2013 WL 12335013 (same); Doe 

v. City of San Diego, No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14,

2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the matter are compelling 

reasons to seal the exhibit).

III. CONCLUSION

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal. Pursuant to

Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motion is 

granted will remain under seal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 2/20/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-02200-HSG Document 223 Filed 02/20/20 Page 3 of 3