Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00119/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-00119-41/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 710
Nature of Suit: Fair Labor Standards Act
Cause of Action: 29:201 Fair Labor Standards Act

---

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

ERIC BENEDICT,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 13-cv-00119-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

[Re: ECF 444]

Before the Court is Defendant Hewlett-Packard Company’s (“HP”) motion to file under 

seal exhibits filed in connection with HP’s Opposition to Plaintiff Eric Benedict’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment on Defendant’s First Amended Counterclaims. ECF 444, 456. For the 

reasons stated below, the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

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. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to 

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden 

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain 

Case 5:13-cv-00119-BLF Document 457 Filed 09/16/16 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

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm 

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the 

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto 

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need 

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are 

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving 

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 

Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This 

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., 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); 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). A protective order sealing the documents during 

discovery may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the 

documents sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows 

the parties to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to 

determine whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) 

(“Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 

as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal 

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 

79-5(b), 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.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and 

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the 

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be 

Case 5:13-cv-00119-BLF Document 457 Filed 09/16/16 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

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by 

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the 

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “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.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

The sealing motion at issue is resolved under the compelling reasons standard because 

summary judgment briefing is more than tangentially related to the merits of this case. With this 

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

ECF 

No.

Document to be Sealed Result Reasoning

444-2 Ex. 1 to HP’s Opposition 

to Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment on 

Defendant’s First 

Amended Counterclaims.

GRANTED. Contains information relating to 

Plaintiff’s personal contact information, 

salary offer, personal account access 

information, and e-mail addresses of the 

respective parties. 

444-4 Ex. 2 to HP’s Opposition 

to Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment on 

Defendant’s First 

Amended Counterclaims.

GRANTED. Contains Plaintiff’s personal contact 

information.

444-6 Ex. 3 to HP’s Opposition 

to Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment on 

Defendant’s First 

Amended Counterclaims.

GRANTED. Contains information relating to 

Plaintiff’s personal contact information, 

salary offer, personal account access 

information, and e-mail addresses of the 

respective parties. 

444-8 Ex. 4 to HP’s Opposition 

to Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment on 

Defendant’s First 

Amended Counterclaims.

GRANTED. Contains Plaintiff’s personal contact 

information.

444-10 Ex. 5 HP’s Opposition to 

Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment on 

Defendant’s First 

Amended Counterclaims.

DENIED. Contains Plaintiff’s home address. 

Denied because the designating party did 

not provide a supporting declaration.

Case 5:13-cv-00119-BLF Document 457 Filed 09/16/16 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

444-12 Ex. 7 to HP’s Opposition 

to Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment on 

Defendant’s First 

Amended Counterclaims.

DENIED. Contains an email from Plaintiff’s 

counsel to HP identifying the names of 

files from the imagined hard-drive that 

Benedict was designating as his “private, 

personal property,” and that Plaintiff 

requested be treated as “Highly 

Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” 

Denied because the designating party did 

not provide a supporting declaration. 

444-14 Ex. 8 to HP’s Opposition 

to Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment on 

Defendant’s First 

Amended Counterclaims.

GRANTED. Contains confidential and proprietary 

business information and information 

identifying HP’s customers, customer 

contacts, the particular services it 

provides for them, and its customers’ 

confidential and proprietary business 

information.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 444 is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART. The Court will not consider the improperly sealed documents unless they are 

publicly filed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2016

 ______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-00119-BLF Document 457 Filed 09/16/16 Page 4 of 4