Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-02509/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-02509-65/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

Master Docket No. 11-CV-02509-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

UNSEAL 

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 HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE 

ANTITRUST LITIGATION 

Master Docket No. 11-CV-2509-LHK 

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: 

ALL ACTIONS 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO UNSEAL 

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an Administrative Motion to Unseal “all papers 

filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel” (ECF No. 789-2). ECF No. 991. On 

September 23, 2014, Defendants opposed. ECF No. 994. 

After considering the parties’ submissions, the Court on November 19, 2014, ordered 

Defendants to file a declaration in support of sealing any papers filed in connection with Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Compel, along with any proposed redactions, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5. ECF 

No. 1024. Defendants did so on December 3, 2014. ECF No. 1029. In their declaration, 

Defendants sought to seal six docket entries: ECF Nos. 789-2, 789-3, 878-1, 878-2, 878-3, 991-1. 

The Court addresses each under the “good cause” standard appropriate for sealing requests 

attached to nondispositive motions, such as Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel. Kamakana v. City & 

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006). The “good cause” standard requires a 

“particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is 

Case 5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document 1047 Filed 01/30/15 Page 1 of 2
Master Docket No. 11-CV-02509-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

UNSEAL 

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 

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). 

With this standard in mind, the Court rules on Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Unseal 

as follows: 

Motion ECF No. Document (as Highlighted) Ruling 

991 789-2 Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion to 

Compel 

DENIED. The Court accepts 

Defendants’ proposed 

redactions. 

991 789-3 Declaration of Kelly M. Dermody GRANTED as to Exhibit A 

(the Terazosin order) and the 

reference thereto at 1:19-20 

(¶ 6) because Exhibit A is a 

publicly available document. 

DENIED otherwise. The 

Court accepts Defendants’ 

other proposed redactions.

991 878-1 Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 

Motion to Compel 

DENIED. The Court accepts 

Defendants’ proposed 

redactions. 

991 878-2 Declaration of Cody S. Harris GRANTED because the 

reference at 1:8-9 (¶ 3) is to a 

publicly available document.

991 878-3 Exhibit A to Declaration of Cody S. Harris: 

In re Terazosin Reply Memorandum 

GRANTED because this 

document is publicly 

available. 

991 991-1 Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion to 

Compel 

DENIED. The Court accepts 

Defendants’ proposed 

redactions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2015 _________________________________ 

 LUCY H. KOH 

 United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document 1047 Filed 01/30/15 Page 2 of 2