Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01797/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-01797-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1

Case No.: 13-CV-01797 LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTION 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

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JESSIE CHAVEZ, as an individual and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated, and 

ANABEL ARMENTA, as an individual and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

PVH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,

TOMMY HILFIGER RETAIL, LLC, and PHV 

RETAIL STORES LLC,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 13-CV-01797 LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

 

Before the Court is an administrative motion to seal brought by Class Member Danah

Lapan (“Lapan”). ECF No. 92. Lapan filed the motion to seal in connection with an objection 

Lapan filed to a proposed settlement in the instant case. See ECF No. 91. Lapan subsequently 

withdrew the objection. ECF No. 107. In the instant motion to seal, Lapan seeks to seal an exhibit 

produced by non-party ADP, Inc. which was designated as confidential. ECF No. 92-1, ¶ 2. 

“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).

Case 5:13-cv-01797-LHK Document 137 Filed 02/11/15 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No.: 13-CV-01797 LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTION 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

For the Northern District of California

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 

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 secret.” 

Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact,” however, “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. Where, as here, a party seeks to seal 

documents in connection with the approval of a settlement agreement, courts have generally 

required such requests to meet the compelling reasons standard. Tarutis v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., 

No. C13-761 JLR, 2014 WL 5808749, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2014) (applying “compelling 

reasons” standard because “approval of the settlement agreement is dispositive of the proceeding”); 

Bernstein v. Target Stores, Inc., No. 13-CV-01018 NC, 2013 WL 5807581, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 

28, 2013) (applying “compelling reasons” standard because the “result of such approval [of a 

settlement] would be a dismissal with prejudice of this entire case.”)

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. R. 79-5(d)(1). “Within 4 days of the filing of the 

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

Case 5:13-cv-01797-LHK Document 137 Filed 02/11/15 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No.: 13-CV-01797 LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTION 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

For the Northern District of California

by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Id. R. 79-

5(e)(1).

With these standards in mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

Motion to Seal ECF No. Document to be Sealed Ruling

92 92-3 Unredacted Exhibit Produced 

by Non-Party ADP, Inc.

DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE because ADP Inc., 

as the “Designating Party,” has 

failed to “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).

If ADP, Inc. wishes to have these documents filed under seal, ADP Inc. must file a motion 

to seal, along with an accompanying declaration, within seven (7) days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2015 _______________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-01797-LHK Document 137 Filed 02/11/15 Page 3 of 3