Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-01824-26/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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

ROBERT HEATH, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

[RE: ECF 311, 315]

Before the Court are Plaintiff Cheryl Fillekes and Opt-In Plaintiffs’ administrative motion

to file under seal Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal of Consent to Join Forms (ECF 311) 

and Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal a motion to withdraw as attorney of record 

for certain Opt-In Plaintiffs (ECF 315). For the reasons that follow, both motions to seal are 

GRANTED.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong 

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. 

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 325 Filed 08/07/18 Page 1 of 4
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

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the 

merits of a case” therefore 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.”). Parties moving 

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This 

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., 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 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). A protective order sealing the documents during 

discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the 

documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows 

the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to 

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A)

(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”). 

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is 

“sealable,” or “privileged or 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, and 

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the 

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 325 Filed 08/07/18 Page 2 of 4
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

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by 

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the 

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative 

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

 II. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed both motions to seal and the declarations submitted in support 

thereof. See ECF 311; Declaration of Daniel Kotchen, ECF 311-1; ECF 315; Declaration of 

Daniel Low, ECF 315-1. In both motions, the movants seek to file under seal the names of certain

Opt-In Plaintiffs. First, Plaintiff Fillekes and the Opt-In Plaintiffs seek to seal the names of Opt-In 

Plaintiffs who wish to voluntarily withdraw their Consent to Join Forms, which the parties filed 

under seal pursuant to Court Order, see ECF 152. See ECF 311. Second, Plaintiffs seek to seal 

the names of certain Opt-In Plaintiffs for whom counsel would like to withdraw as attorney of 

record. See ECF 315.

Notices and motions to withdraw as counsel are non-dispositive filings to which the “good 

cause” standard applies. The Court finds that good cause exists to seal the Opt-In Plaintiffs’ 

personal information in both filings. The Court has previously granted administrative motions to 

seal documents in this case containing the personal information of Google’s applicants, including 

their names. See ECF 197, 256, 298, 323. As with those motions, sealing this information is 

justified to maintain the confidentiality of the Plaintiffs’ personal information and to prevent their 

exposure to harm or identity theft. Moreover, both requests are narrowly tailored to seal only 

those portions of relevant filings disclosing the names of Opt-In Plaintiffs. As such, the Court 

finds good cause to seal portions of the Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal of Consent to Join Forms

and portions of the Motion to Withdraw as Attorney of Record for Certain Opt-In Plaintiffs, and 

thus GRANTS both motions to seal.

As redacted versions of the notice and the motion to withdraw have been filed in the public 

record, and unredacted versions have been filed under seal, no further action is necessary.

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 325 Filed 08/07/18 Page 3 of 4
4

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 7, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-01824-BLF Document 325 Filed 08/07/18 Page 4 of 4