Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00560/USCOURTS-cand-3_14-cv-00560-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

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

MICHAEL ALLAGAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BP SOLAR INTERNATIONAL, INC., et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-00560-SI 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 149

Plaintiffs have filed an administrative motion to seal. Dkt. No. 149. Plaintiffs seek to seal

exhibits to the declaration of Nimish R. Desai in support of plaintiff’s motion for class 

certification. Plaintiffs also seek to file a redacted copy of their motion for class certification, 

redacting those portions of the memorandum that reference the exhibits sought to be sealed. 

LEGAL STANDARD

With the exception of a narrow range of documents that are “traditionally [] kept secret,” 

courts begin their sealing analysis with “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2003). “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.” Civ. L.R. 79-

5(d)(1)(A). Where a party seeks to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion, “a 

particularized showing . . . under the ‘good cause’ standard” of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(c) is required. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 

2006); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). In addition, all requests to file under seal “must be narrowly 

tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Civ. 

Case 3:14-cv-00560-SI Document 153 Filed 01/13/16 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

L.R. 79-5(b). Because a motion for class certification is not dispositive, the “good cause” standard 

applies.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek to file over fifty exhibits under seal, in addition to filing eight redacted 

exhibits.1See Desai Decl. at 2-7. Neither plaintiffs nor defendants attempt to explain why public 

filing of the documents in question would cause harm to itself or third parties, or otherwise meet 

the “good cause” standard. Plaintiffs explain that the documents include those “produced by 

Defendants and third parties” and which the producing parties have designated as confidential 

under the protective order. Motion at 6 (citing Dkt. No. 59). Defendants state that the “exhibits 

contain confidential business information,” along with “highly sensitive, non-public information 

which, if revealed publicly, could potentially cause irreparable harm to BP.” Beroukhim Decl. 

¶ 6. Good cause, however, “cannot be established simply by showing that the document is subject 

to a protective order or by stating in general terms that the material is considered to be confidential

. . . .” Bain v. AstraZeneca LP, 2011 WL 482767, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2011); see also Civil 

L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).

The only exhibit for which either party offers further explanation is Exhibit 10. This 

exhibit contains declarations of proposed class members and is sought to be sealed in its entirety. 

See Motion at 6. Plaintiffs state that because these declarations “discuss the terms of accepted 

warranty offers that may be subject to confidentiality clauses,” plaintiffs sought to seal Exhibit 10 

“[o]ut of an abundance of caution . . . .” Id. (emphasis added). Sealing these declarations in their 

entirety, particularly when their confidential status is in question, fails to meet the “narrow 

tailoring” requirement. 

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to seal is DENIED. Plaintiffs may file a new motion in 

compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Under the local rules, such a motion must be 

 

1

Plaintiffs originally sought to file even more documents under seal, but defendants 

clarified that they had inadvertently designated six of these documents as confidential and that 

they did not in fact need to be sealed. See Beroukhim Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. 

Case 3:14-cv-00560-SI Document 153 Filed 01/13/16 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

accompanied by “[a] declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or 

portions thereof, are sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). The declaration must also “identify the 

party that has designated the material as confidential (“the Designating Party”). Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). 

The motion shall be accompanied by “[a] proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the 

sealable material, and which lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to 

be sealed.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(B). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal is DENIED without 

prejudice to the parties’ filing a new motion in compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:14-cv-00560-SI Document 153 Filed 01/13/16 Page 3 of 3