Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05211/USCOURTS-cand-5_18-cv-05211-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

1

Case No. 18-CV-05211-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RENEWED MOTION TO FILE UNDER 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

EDWARD R MONFORT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADOMANI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 18-CV-05211-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART RENEWED 

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 110

On September 12, 2019, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. ECF No. 82. 

On September 26, 2019, Plaintiff filed his opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. ECF No. 85. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed an administrative motion to seal 

certain exhibits in support of his opposition brief. ECF No. 84. On November 22, 2019, the Court 

granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s sealing motion but permitted the parties to jointly file 

a renewed motion. ECF No. 106. Pursuant to the Court’s order, the parties filed their renewed 

motion on December 6, 2019. ECF No. 110 (“Mot.”). In support of the parties’ renewed sealing 

motion, the parties filed a declaration from Daniel-Charles Wolf. ECF No. 110-1 (“Wolf Decl.”). 

The parties’ renewed administrative motion to seal is now before the Court.

The parties’ renewed motion pertains to 14 documents designated as confidential by 

Case 5:18-cv-05211-LHK Document 119 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 18-CV-05211-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RENEWED MOTION TO FILE UNDER 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

Defendants that are located at Exhibits E, F, H, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, X, Z, and 3 to the 

Declaration of Kristen O’Connor in Support of Plaintiff Edward R. Monfort’s Response in 

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 87 (“O’Connor Decl.”); 

ECF No. 110-3 (redacted exhibits to O’Connor Decl.). For the reasons below, the Court 

GRANTS the parties’ renewed administrative motion to file under seal.

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. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Within the Ninth Circuit, documents that are more than “tangentially related . . . to the underlying 

cause of action” are not sealable unless the Court agrees that “compelling reasons” exist to 

overcome the presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 

Here, Defendants wish to seal judicial records related to a motion for summary judgment, 

which is a dispositive motion and thus more than “tangentially related” to the cause of action. See 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Defendants must therefore overcome the presumption of public 

access by offering “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 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 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.

In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard under Kamakana, all parties 

Case 5:18-cv-05211-LHK Document 119 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 18-CV-05211-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RENEWED MOTION TO FILE UNDER 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

requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79–5, including that rule’s requirement that 

the request must “establish . . . that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable 

as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). The sealing 

request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id. 

II. DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, Defendants state that Exhibit H, ECF No. 90-3, need not be filed 

under seal. See Wolf Decl. at 3. Accordingly, the Court DENIES with prejudice the parties’ 

request to seal with respect to Exhibit H. Plaintiff shall refile Exhibit H publicly consistent with 

this order and Civil Local Rule 79-5(f).

Additionally, the parties seek to seal portions of Exhibits E, F, L, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, X, Z, 

and 3 to the Declaration of Kristen O’Connor. See ECF No. 110-3. The information sought to be 

sealed in these exhibits falls into the following categories: (1) contracts between Defendants and 

third parties, and information provided by third parties; (ii) confidential financial information from 

Defendants; (iii) personally identifiable information of third-party individuals, including names, 

medical records, and financial information; and (iv) information regarding Defendants’

prospective business plans, dealings and strategies, including those pertaining to Adomani’s initial 

public offering. See Wolf Decl. The Court agrees that compelling reasons exist to seal this 

information. See, e.g., FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 17-CV-220-LHK, 2019 WL 95922, at *3 

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (granting motion to seal under the compelling to the extent it may harm 

the party or third parties’ “competitive standing and divulges terms of confidential contracts, 

contract negotiations, or trade secrets.”); Krieger v. Atheros Commc’ns, Inc., No. 11-CV-640-

LHK, 2011 WL 2550831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jun. 25, 2011) (finding information regarding party’s 

“long-term financial projections, discussions of business strategy, and competitive analyses” 

sealable under the compelling reasons standard); Nursing Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., 

No. C01-00988 MJJ, 2007 WL 3232267, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2007) (“The Ninth Circuit has 

found that compelling reasons exist to keep personal information confidential to protect an 

individual’s privacy interest and to prevent exposure to harm or identity theft.” (citing Foltz v. 

Case 5:18-cv-05211-LHK Document 119 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 18-CV-05211-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RENEWED MOTION TO FILE UNDER 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

State Farm. Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003))); Benedict v. HewlettPackard Co., No. 13-CV-00119-LHK, 22014 WL 233827, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2014) 

(granting motion to seal confidential customer information, including address, phone number, and 

email address); Transperfect Global, Inc. v. Motionpoint Corp., No. C 10-2590 CW, 2013 WL 

209678, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2013) (granting motion to seal exhibits that contained 

proprietary information about the sealing party’s internal business operations). Furthermore, the 

parties’ request is narrowly tailored because the requested sealing includes only those categories 

of information. Accordingly, the parties’ request to seal the remaining exhibits is GRANTED.

In sum, the Court rules on the parties’ renewed motion to seal as follows:

Specific Document Specific Portion Ruling

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit E

180:14–20, 181:17–182:24, 202:25–203:2 GRANTED

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit F

9:25–10:12, 100:22–101:5, 216:17–217:10, 

161:17–162:1, 165:3–8, 165:12–13, 165:21–22, 

165:24–25, 166:6–7, 166:10–11, 166:18–19, 

166:23, 166:25–167:1, 167:5–6, 167:8–9, 

204:16–17, 214:18–22

GRANTED

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit H

N/A – Defendant does not seek to seal this 

document

DENIED with 

prejudice

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit L

Redactions at L.3–L.8 GRANTED

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit M

200:24–201:6 GRANTED

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit N

Redactions at ADOM-MON_0093642–0093651 GRANTED

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit O

Redactions at O.1–O.4 GRANTED

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit P

Redactions at ADOM-MON_0054041 GRANTED

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit R

Redactions at ADOM-MON_0085013–0085016 GRANTED

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit S

Redactions at ADOM-MON_0006418–0006423 GRANTED

Case 5:18-cv-05211-LHK Document 119 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 18-CV-05211-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART RENEWED MOTION TO FILE UNDER 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

Specific Document Specific Portion Ruling

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit T

Redactions at ADOM-MON_0045847–0045850 GRANTED

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit X

Redactions at ADOM-MON_0107732–0107898

GRANTED

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit Z

Redactions at ADOM-MON_0129753–0129756 GRANTED

O’Connor Decl., 

Exhibit 3

Redactions at ADOM-MON_0043234–0043243 GRANTED

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:18-cv-05211-LHK Document 119 Filed 01/13/20 Page 5 of 5