Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-md-02617/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-md-02617-45/pdf.json

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

---

1

Case No. 15-MD-02617-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS 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

IN RE ANTHEM, INC. DATA BREACH 

LITIGATION

Case No. 15-MD-02617-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 473, 477, 495, 504, 508, 509

Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal. ECF Nos. 473, 

477, 495, 504, 508 & 509. These motions seek to file under seal portions of the Second 

Consolidated Amended Complaint (“SAC”), ECF Nos. 473 & 477; portions of the Anthem 

Defendants’ second round motion to dismiss, ECF Nos. 495 & 504; and portions of Plaintiffs’ 

opposition to the Anthem Defendants’ second round motion to dismiss, ECF Nos. 508 & 509. 

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, each party filed a provisional motion to file under seal 

before filing a joint motion to file under seal a week later. Thus, because the joint motions—ECF 

Nos. 477, 504 & 509—supersede the initial provisional motions to file under seal, the parties’ 

provisional motions—ECF Nos. 473, 495 & 508—are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.

As to the remaining joint motions, “[h]istorically, courts have recognized a ‘general right 

Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 526 Filed 05/27/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 15-MD-02617-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS 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

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)). Thus, 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 motions that are “more than tangentially 

related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 

1099 (9th Cir. 2016), 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 v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th 

Cir. 2006). The SAC and the Anthem Defendants’ second round motions to dismiss are 

documents that are more than tangentially related to the underlying causes of action. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court has broad discretion to permit 

sealing of documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade secret or other confidential research, 

development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1)(G). The Ninth Circuit defines 

trade secrets as follows: “[a] trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or 

compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to 

obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.” Clark v. Bunker, 453 F.2d 

1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972). “Generally [a trade secret] relates to the production of goods . . . . It 

may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the business . . . .” Id. In 

addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that sealing may be justified to prevent judicial 

documents from being used “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 

competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.

Furthermore, 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, protectable as a trade 

secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be 

Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 526 Filed 05/27/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 15-MD-02617-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS 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

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. 

In light of the foregoing discussion, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard to 

the parties’ request to seal documents filed in connection with the SAC and the Anthem 

Defendants’ second round motions to dismiss. The Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

477 Compelling 

Reasons

SAC DENIED as to paragraph 350, lines 25 and 

26: starting from “attack” and ending with 

“industry standards.”

DENIED as to paragraph 355.

DENIED as to paragraph 361.

DENIED as to paragraph 363, lines 17 and 

18, starting from “On information and belief” 

and ending with “security system.”

Otherwise GRANTED as to the proposed 

redactions.

504 Compelling 

Reasons

Anthem Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss

DENIED as to page 21, lines 17 and 18: 

starting from “the employee” and ending with 

“Plaintiffs’ PII.” 

Otherwise GRANTED as to the proposed 

redactions. 

509 Compelling 

Reasons

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to 

Anthem Defendants’ 

Motion to Dismiss

GRANTED as to the proposed redactions.

Any renewed motions to seal shall shall be filed within 7 days of this Order. 

Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 526 Filed 05/27/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 15-MD-02617-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-md-02617-LHK Document 526 Filed 05/27/16 Page 4 of 4