Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-07186/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-07186-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Injunctive &amp; Declaratory Relief

---

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

JOHN BARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

INSIGHT GLOBAL, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.16-cv-07186-BLF (VKD)

SEALING ORDER

Re: Dkt. Nos. 240, 246

Insight Global asks the Court to seal excerpts from the deposition testimony of its 

corporate representative, David Lowance, filed provisionally under seal in connection with the 

parties’ discovery dispute. See Dkt. Nos. 240, 241. Insight Global relies in part on the assertion 

that it has designated the testimony “confidential” or “confidential—attorneys’ eyes only” under 

the protective order (Dkt. No. 59), and those designations have not been challenged by Mr. Barker 

or Beacon Hill. Dkt. No. 246, ¶¶ 5-6. However, as the protective order itself makes clear, parties 

may not rely on their designations under the order as a basis to file material. Rather, a party must 

comply with the requirements of Civil Local Rule 79-5. Dkt. No. 59 at 3-4.

There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and 

documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of 

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only 

“tangentially related to the merits of a case,” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 

F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 

38 (2016). A party seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion 

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 248 Filed 05/06/19 Page 1 of 2
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

must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1179-80.

Insight Global asks the Court to seal excerpts of the deposition testimony of a corporate 

representative to which the parties referred in briefing whether Insight Global had complied its 

obligations under Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dkt. No. 230. The 

underlying briefing does not concern the merits of the parties’ claims or defenses, but rather 

whether Insight Global should be required to provide further testimony on the noticed topics. This 

briefing is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. The Court therefore applies the 

“good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). 

Insight Global has shown good cause to seal the materials identified at paragraph 7 of the 

Marquardt declaration for the reasons described therein. Dkt. No. 246. Accordingly, the Court 

finds that the deposition filed under seal at Dkt. No. 241 may remain under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 6, 2019

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:16-cv-07186-BLF Document 248 Filed 05/06/19 Page 2 of 2