Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00536/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-00536-40/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 371
Nature of Suit: Truth in Lending
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

1

Case No.08-CV-00536-JF (LHK)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 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

JAY J. RALSTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MORTGAGE INVESTORS GROUP, INC., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 08-CV-00536-JF (LHK)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 441, 451

Before the Court are two administrative motions to seal, one filed by Browne George Ross 

LLP, ECF No. 441, and one filed by Berns Weiss LLP and Andrus Anderson LLP, ECF No. 451.

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. 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. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that 

Case 5:08-cv-00536-JF Document 457 Filed 08/25/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No.08-CV-00536-JF (LHK)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 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

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). 

In contrast, records attached to nondispositive motions are not subject to the strong 

presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the documents attached to 

nondispositive motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause 

of action,” parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179-80 (internal quotation marks omitted). The “good 

cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” 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) (internal quotation marks omitted); 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). Where, as here, 

a party seeks to seal documents relating to a motion for attorneys’ fees, courts treat such motions 

as non-dispositive. See Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. C 12-1971 CW, 2015 

WL 604055, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2015).

Furthermore, 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, 

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 

Case 5:08-cv-00536-JF Document 457 Filed 08/25/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No.08-CV-00536-JF (LHK)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 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

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 or 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.

With these standards in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions to seal as follows:

Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling

441 441-4 Opposition of Browne George 

Ross LLP to Motion to Finalize 

Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 

(“Opposition”)

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

441 442-2 Declaration of Michael A. 

Bowse in Support of Opposition 

(“Bowse Decl.”)

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

441 442-3 Exhibits 1-16 to Bowse Decl. DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

441 442-4 Exhibits 17-30 to Bowse Decl. DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

441 443-2 Declaration of Eric M. George in 

Support of Opposition (“George 

Decl.”)

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

441 443-3 Exhibits 1-6 to George Decl. DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

441 444-1 Exhibit 7 to George Decl. (Part 

1)

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

Case 5:08-cv-00536-JF Document 457 Filed 08/25/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No.08-CV-00536-JF (LHK)

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS 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

Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling

441 444-2 Exhibit 7 to George Decl. (Part 

2)

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

441 444-3 Exhibit 7 to George Decl. (Part 

3)

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

441 444-4 Exhibit 7 to George Decl. (Part 

4)

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

441 444-5 Exhibit 7 to George Decl. (Part 

5)

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

451 451-5 Exhibit F to Reply Declaration 

of Jeffrey K. Berns in Support of 

Lead Class Counsel’s Reply to 

Opposition

DENIED WITH PREJUDICE 

because the material sought to 

be sealed is not sealable.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-00536-JF Document 457 Filed 08/25/15 Page 4 of 4