Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04948/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04948-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:2 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

OJMAR US, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SECURITY PEOPLE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04948-HSG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 14

On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff Omjar U.S., LLC submitted an administrative motion to file 

under seal highlighted portions of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. No. 14

(“Mot.”). Plaintiff took no position on whether the highlighted portions meet the applicable legal 

standard. Id. at 2:26-27. On October 16, counsel for Defendants Security People, Inc. and Asil 

Kokcebay filed a declaration in support of Plaintiff’s motion, arguing that the highlighted portions 

of the FAC meet the “compelling reasons” standard and the requirements of Local Rule 79-5. 

Dkt. No. 16 (“Hainline Decl.”).

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard 

derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 

judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To overcome this 

strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific 

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 

Case 4:16-cv-04948-HSG Document 18 Filed 10/19/16 Page 1 of 4
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

(citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, compelling reasons

sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records 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 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court must 

“balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 

records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial 

records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its 

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (citations, brackets, and internal 

quotation marks omitted). 

Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking 

to file a document or portions of it under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or portions 

thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the 

law. . . . The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . . .” 

Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a 

case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 

LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must 

meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 

1097. 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) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see

also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

II. DISCUSSION

In considering the motion to seal portions of the FAC, the Court applies the “compelling 

reasons” standard. Although the Ninth Circuit appears not to have explicitly stated what standard 

applies to the sealing of a complaint, many courts in this district and elsewhere have found that the 

compelling reasons standard applies. See Sjostrom v. Kraatz, No. 16-CV-01381-DMR, 2016 WL 

Case 4:16-cv-04948-HSG Document 18 Filed 10/19/16 Page 2 of 4
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

3940886, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2016); In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 

2013 WL 5366963, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013); Nucal Foods, Inc. v. Quality Egg LLC, 10–

3105, 2012 WL 260078, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2012); TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago 

Techs. Ltd., 09–1531, 2010 WL 2474387, at *1 (D. Ariz. June 11, 2010); Dunbar v. Google, Inc.,

12–3305, 2013 WL 4428853, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2013); In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative 

Litig., 06–06110, 2008 WL 1859067, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008). This makes sense 

because the complaint is more than “tangentially related to the merits of the case.” See Ctr. for 

Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see also Sjostrom, 2016 WL 3940886, at *2 (“Because the 

complaint is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the compelling reasons 

standard governs the sealing request.”).

Here, Defendants have carried their burden of “articulating compelling reasons supported 

by specific factual findings.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. The highlighted portions of the 

FAC are derived from Defendants’ customer agreements, which “contain confidential information 

regarding Defendants’ products, services, and business practices.” Hainline Decl. ¶ 4. This 

information includes “cancellation, renewal, durational, and pricing information that is not 

publically known.” Id. ¶ 5. Disclosure of this confidential information would result in “unfair 

harm” to Defendants’ business and customers. Id. ¶ 5.

Moreover, the compelling reasons articulated by Defendants outweigh the public interest 

in disclosure. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. The motion involves small portions of just six 

pages of the FAC. See Docket No. 14-2, at 14:25, 14:28-15:6, 15:10-13, 17:3, 22:9-10, 23:27-

24:7. After careful review, the Court is convinced that sealing these passages will not interfere 

with the public’s ability to understand the judicial process. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

Thus, the “compelling reasons” standard is satisfied.

Lastly, the highlighted portions of the FAC meet the standard set out in Local Rule 79-5. 

The confidential information reflected in those sections is drawn from communications that were 

designated as “Attorneys Eyes Only.” Hainline Decl. ¶ 4. In addition, the proposed sealing of a 

small number of passages is “narrowly tailored” to prevent harm to Defendants’ business and 

customers. See Civil L.R. 79-5.

Case 4:16-cv-04948-HSG Document 18 Filed 10/19/16 Page 3 of 4
4

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

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to seal the highlighted 

portions of the FAC.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-04948-HSG Document 18 Filed 10/19/16 Page 4 of 4