Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02941/USCOURTS-cand-5_16-cv-02941-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal- Property Damage (P.I.)

---

1

Case No. 16-CV-02941-LHK

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

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

CINDY COLEMAN-ANACLETO,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-CV-02941-LHK 

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

Re: Dkt. No. 24, 26, 28

Before the Court are administrative motions to seal filed by Plaintiff Cindy ColemanAnacleto (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“Defendant”). ECF 

Nos. 24, 26, 28. The parties seek to seal briefing and exhibits filed in connection with Plaintiff’s 

motion to remand, ECF No. 13, and Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 16. 

“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 5:16-cv-02941-LHK Document 39 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 6
2

Case No. 16-CV-02941-LHK

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

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 5:16-cv-02941-LHK Document 39 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 6
3

Case No. 16-CV-02941-LHK

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

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).

The parties seek to seal briefing and exhibits submitted in connection with Plaintiff’s 

motion to remand, ECF Nos. 24, 28, as well as briefing and exhibits submitted in connection with 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 26. Although Plaintiff’s motion to remand does not 

address the merits of Plaintiff’s claims, the Ninth Circuit recently held that motions to remand are 

considered “dispositive” motions. See Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1047 (9th Cir. 2015) (noting, 

in context of magistrate jurisdiction, that “the effect of a remand order is to end all federal 

Case 5:16-cv-02941-LHK Document 39 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 6
4

Case No. 16-CV-02941-LHK

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

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

proceedings,” which necessarily is dispositive of all relief sought by the party “put out of federal 

court”). Defendant’s motion to dismiss is also a dispositive motion. Accordingly, requests to seal 

in connection with Plaintiff’s motion to remand and Defendant’s motion to dismiss are governed 

by the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re PPA Products Liability Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 

1231 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that motions to dismiss are typically treated as dispositive motions);

Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 2014 WL 233827, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) (applying 

“compelling reasons” standard to motions to seal information in connection with a motion to 

dismiss). 

With this standard in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

24 Compelling 

Reasons

Defendant’s Opposition 

to Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Remand

DENIED as to the following proposed 

redactions:

 page i, ln 9: “Members”

 page i, ln 11: “More Than”

 page i, ln 14: “Up to”

 page 2, ln 3: “wall mounts in 

California”

 page 8, ln 8: “Members”

 page 8, ln 9: “Ultra Slim wall mounts”

 page 11, ln. 17: the first two words

Otherwise GRANTED.

Case 5:16-cv-02941-LHK Document 39 Filed 09/02/16 Page 4 of 6
5

Case No. 16-CV-02941-LHK

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

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

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

24 Compelling 

Reasons

Declaration of Ilhyun Ryu 

in Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Remand, ¶¶ 2–6

GRANTED as to the following proposed 

redactions:

 page 1, ln 18: the last word

 page 1, lns 19, 20, 21

 page 1, ln 22: the specific number of 

Ultra Slim wall mounts sold

 page 2, ln 1: except for the last word

 page 2, lns 3–9, 13–17

 page 2, ln 10: except for “Ultra Slim 

Wall Mounts sold”

 page 2, ln 11: the last three words

 page 2, ln 12: the first five words

 page 2, ln 20: the last word

 page 2, ln 21: the specific number of 

Ultra Slim wall mounts sold

 page 2, ln 22: the estimate of the 

amount of money

 page 2, ln 24: words 8–14

 page 2, ln 27: the last word

Otherwise DENIED.

26 Compelling 

Reasons

Plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendant’s Motion to 

Dismiss

DENIED as to the following proposed 

redactions:

 page 7, ln 23: “100”

 page 7, ln 24: “percent”

 page 16: “100 percent”, “millions”

Otherwise GRANTED.

Case 5:16-cv-02941-LHK Document 39 Filed 09/02/16 Page 5 of 6
6

Case No. 16-CV-02941-LHK

ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

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

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

28 Compelling 

Reasons

Plaintiff’s Reply in 

Support of Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Remand

DENIED as to the following proposed 

redactions:

 page 4, ln 14: “every single model of 

every single”

 page 4, ln 20: “100 percent”

 page 5, ln 25–26: “best estimation of 

actual retail price . . . based on”

 page 6, lns 3–4: “best estimation of 

actual retail price is based on”

 page 6, ln 7: “actual retail price”

 page 7, ln 17: “(net quantity sold in 

California”, “times suggested retail 

price for the WMN1000C”

Otherwise GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:16-cv-02941-LHK Document 39 Filed 09/02/16 Page 6 of 6