Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04711/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-04711-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1330 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

FLOW MOTION GROUP, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ANDROID JONES, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-04711-JCS 

ORDER REGARDING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 2

Plaintiffs move under Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5 to file portions of their Complaint 

and documents attached thereto under seal. Plaintiffs contend that the material at issue “must” be 

filed under seal because its disclosure “could subject [Plaintiffs] to claims for breach of contract.” 

Tyan Decl. (dkt. 2-1) ¶¶ 3−4; see generally Admin. Mot. (dkt. 2). Plaintiffs do not address 

whether the information itself could cause harm to any party if disclosed, nor do they cite 

authority for their position that contractual nondisclosure commitments alone support filing 

portions of a complaint under seal.

Courts have long recognized a strong presumption of public access to court records. 

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing, e.g., Nixon v. 

warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597−98 & n.7 (1978)). A party seeking to overcome that 

presumption generally must demonstrate “„compelling reasons‟” to file documents under seal

rather than in the public record. Id. at 1178−79 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 

331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To authorize sealing based only on a private agreement

among the parties to maintain confidentiality would permit an end run around the public‟s right of 

access. Plaintiffs cite no reason for sealing other than contractual obligations, and no compelling

basis for sealing is obvious from the face of the material at issue.

The Court recognizes that the competing obligations of public access and private 

Case 4:16-cv-04711-PJH Document 10 Filed 08/23/16 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

confidentiality agreements place Plaintiffs in a difficult position. Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), which 

governs the filing of documents designated as confidential by another party under a protective 

order, provides a mechanism to balance those interests. The Court finds that procedure 

appropriate for the material at issue here, although additional time is warranted at this early stage 

of the case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are instructed to serve their administrative motion, this Order, 

and the materials at issue on any person or entity that Plaintiffs believe can claim a confidentiality 

interest in those materials no later than August 30, 2016. Any such party, including Plaintiffs, 

may file a declaration no later than September 6, 2016 setting forth specific compelling reasons

why specific sensitive portions of the material should remain under seal. Such requests must be 

narrowly tailored. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(b); see also In re Hewlett-Packard Co. S’holder Derivative 

Litig., No. 3:12-cv-06003-CRB, ECF Doc. No. 411 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2015). If no party files a 

responsive declaration setting forth compelling reasons for sealing, the Court will deny Plaintiffs‟

administrative motion and order the Complaint and its attachments filed in the public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 23, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-04711-PJH Document 10 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 2