Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05013/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-05013-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:206 Collect Unpaid Wages

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-05013-LHK

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO SEAL

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

TREVOR JOHNSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUANTUM LEARNING NETWORK, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-CV-05013-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION 

TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 44

Plaintiffs Trevor Johnson and Samantha Harmon (“Plaintiffs”), along with Defendant 

Quantum Learning Network, Inc. (“Defendant”), jointly seek to seal portions of a declaration 

submitted in support of Plaintiffs’ amended motion for preliminary approval of class action 

settlement. ECF No. 44 (motion to seal); ECF No. 45 (amended motion for preliminary approval 

of class action settlement). “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and 

copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. 

City & Cty. 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)). Thus, when considering a sealing request, “a 

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

Case 5:15-cv-05013-LHK Document 47 Filed 08/22/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 15-CV-05013-LHK

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO SEAL

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

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially 

related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 

1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of 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 secrets.” 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.

Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 

of a case,” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 

1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court 

records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or 

only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the 

merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. 

The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 

will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–

11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by 

specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

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, 

Case 5:15-cv-05013-LHK Document 47 Filed 08/22/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 15-CV-05013-LHK

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO SEAL

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

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

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 U.S. 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, 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).

In the instant case, the parties seek to seal ¶¶ 3, and 4 of the declaration of Roberta 

DePorter (“DePorter”), which is offered in support of Plaintiffs’ amended motion for preliminary 

approval of class action settlement. ECF No. 44. The parties submit that there are “compelling 

reasons” to seal the designated portions of Deporter’s declaration. Id. at 3; see also In re Google 

Inc. Gmail Litig., 2014 WL 10537440, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2016) (applying “compelling 

reasons” standard to documents submitted with briefing on motion for class certification). With 

Case 5:15-cv-05013-LHK Document 47 Filed 08/22/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 15-CV-05013-LHK

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO SEAL

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

this standard in mind, the Court GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to seal. The parties’ motion is 

narrowly tailored and seeks to seal only the sensitive financial information of non-parties DePorter 

and DePorter’s spouse, as well as sensitive financial information of Defendant that, if made 

public, could harm Defendant’s business interests. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 

(noting that “harm [to] a litigant’s competitive standing” is a “compelling reason” to seal 

information).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-05013-LHK Document 47 Filed 08/22/16 Page 4 of 4