Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05226/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-05226-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Contract Dispute

---

1 

Case No. 13-CV-05226-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE 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 

IN RE ADOBE SYSTEMS, INC. PRIVACY 

LITIGATION 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 13-CV-05226-LHK

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTION TO SEAL 

Before the Court is an administrative motion to seal several documents filed in connection 

with Plaintiffs’ motion for approval of voluntary dismissal of putative class claims pursuant to 

settlement. ECF No. 86. As the designating party, Defendant has filed a declaration in support of 

the sealing motion, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. ECF No. 89. 

“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 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 

Case 5:13-cv-05226-LHK Document 106 Filed 08/13/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

Case No. 13-CV-05226-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE 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 

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.

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 of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. 

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). 

It is unclear whether a motion to approve the voluntary dismissal of putative class claims is 

considered a dispositive motion, but some district courts have treated it as such. See, e.g., Luo v. 

Zynga Inc., No. 13-CV-00186 NC, 2013 WL 5814763, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2013) (applying 

compelling reasons standard to motion to seal documents in connection with voluntary dismissal of 

putative Fair Labor Standards Act class action). The Court need not decide which standard applies 

in this case, however, because the Court finds that Plaintiffs satisfy the higher “compelling 

reasons” standard.

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. 

Case 5:13-cv-05226-LHK Document 106 Filed 08/13/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

Case No. 13-CV-05226-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE 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 

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 

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

5(e)(1). 

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

Motion ECF No. Document Ruling 

86 86-4 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of 

Voluntary Dismissal of Putative 

Class Claims Pursuant to 

Settlement

GRANTED as to proposed redactions.

86 86-5 Declaration of Eric H. Gibbs in 

Support of Motion for Voluntary 

Dismissal of Class Claims

GRANTED as to proposed redactions.

86 86-6 Confidential Audit Scope, Gibbs 

Declaration Ex. 1, Settlement 

Agreement, Confidential 

Attachment

GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 13, 2015 _________________________________ 

 LUCY H. KOH 

 United States District Judge 

Case 5:13-cv-05226-LHK Document 106 Filed 08/13/15 Page 3 of 3