Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02167/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-02167-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

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

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL 

DISTRICT,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02167-HSG 

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 

MOTIONS TO SEAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 55, 62

Pending before the Court are two motions to file under seal. Dkt. Nos. 55, 62. The

motions seek to seal Plaintiff’s petition for approval of the settlement reached in this case and

documents accompanying that petition. No oppositions to the motions to seal were filed, and the 

time to do so has passed. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“Two standards generally govern motions to seal documents . . . . First, a ‘compelling 

reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records. This standard derives from the common law 

right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 

documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Nixon v. 

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7). “[A] ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ 

is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)

(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To 

overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record must “articulate 

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 

judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal citations, quotation 

marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the 

Case 4:14-cv-02167-HSG Document 65 Filed 09/14/15 Page 1 of 3
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

public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records 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 secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citing 

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact 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.

The court must “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 

keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 

certain judicial records, it must base it decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179. Civil Local Rule 

79-5 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file 

a document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, 

are privileged, 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.” Civil L.R. 79-

5(b).

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).

Because approval of the parties’ settlement agreement would terminate this action, the 

Court considers Plaintiff’s administrative motions to seal under the “compelling reasons” 

standard. See Keirsey v. eBay, Inc., No. 12-cv-1200, 2013 WL 5609318, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 

Case 4:14-cv-02167-HSG Document 65 Filed 09/14/15 Page 2 of 3
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

2013) (“[A] motion seeking the Court’s preliminary approval of the settlement of the case may be 

effectively dispositive. While the Court has not identified any authority discussing the appropriate 

standard for a motion of this type, the Court concludes that the ‘compelling reasons’ standard is 

the appropriate standard.”).

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s motions to seal do not approach the showing necessary to overcome the strong 

presumption of public access to court documents articulated in Kamakana. The parties’ 

preference that their settlement remain confidential does not “outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 

judicial process” and “significant public events.” 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal citations, 

quotation marks, and alterations omitted). In addition, Plaintiff’s motions—which seek to seal the 

petition for approval and all documents accompanying that petition—are not “narrowly tailored to 

seek sealing only of sealable material” as required by this Court’s Local Rules. See Civil L.R. 79-

5(b). Any future motion to seal must identify a compelling reason to seal and propose tailored 

redactions of only the information to which that compelling reason applies.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the parties’ administrative motions to seal are DENIED. The 

Court directs the parties to review and strictly comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2015

_________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-02167-HSG Document 65 Filed 09/14/15 Page 3 of 3