Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07433/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-07433-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

DIGNITY HEALTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARAMARK HEALTHCARE SUPPORT 

SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-07433-JD 

ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 28

This order resolves plaintiff Dignity Health’s unopposed request to file a “Master Service 

Agreement” (“MSA”) under seal. Dkt. Nos. 28, 31. The request is denied. 

The Court evaluates a sealing request in light of whether it was made in connection with a 

dispositive or non-dispositive motion. For dispositive motions, the historic “strong presumption 

of access to judicial records” fully applies, and a party seeking sealing must establish “compelling 

reasons” to overcome that presumption. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 

(9th Cir. 2003)). This standard presents a “high threshold,” and “a ‘good cause’ showing will not, 

without more, satisfy” it. Id. at 1180 (citations omitted). When ordering sealing in this context, 

the district court must also “articulate the rationale underlying its decision to seal.” Apple Inc. v. 

Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011).

The non-dispositive motion context is different. In that context, “the usual presumption of 

the public’s right of access is rebutted,” “the public has less of a need for access to court records,” 

and “the public policies that support the right of access to dispositive motions, and related 

materials, do not apply with equal force.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citations omitted). Such 

materials may be sealed where the party seeking sealing makes a “particularized showing” under 

Case 3:18-cv-07433-JD Document 44 Filed 12/23/19 Page 1 of 2
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

the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 

331 F.3d at 1135, 1138). 

Under either standard, generic references to a “general category of privilege, without any 

further elaboration or any specific linkage with the documents, do[] not satisfy the burden.” 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. Similarly, “an unsupported assertion of unfair advantage to 

competitors without explaining how a competitor would use the information to obtain an unfair 

advantage is insufficient.” Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 14-CV-02098-JD, 2015 WL 

13063803, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015) (internal quotation omitted). 

In addition, all parties requesting sealing in this district must comply with Civil Local Rule 

79-5, including that rule’s requirement that the sealing request must “establish[] that the 

document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to 

protection under the law” (i.e., is “sealable”). Civil L.R. 79-5(b). The request must also “be 

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id. 

Whether the dispositive or non-dispositive motion standard is applied, sealing is not 

appropriate. That is because Dignity Health offers only a generic reason for sealing, and makes no

effort to narrowly tailor the request to truly sensitive information. 

Consequently, sealing of the MSA is denied. Dignity Health is directed to file an 

unredacted copy of the MSA in the public docket by January 2, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2019

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-07433-JD Document 44 Filed 12/23/19 Page 2 of 2