Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02390/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-02390-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:405 Fair Housing Act

---

1

Case No.: 13-CV-02390-LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 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

LINCOLN JONES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

Case No.:13-CV-02390-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 134, 139

Before the court are two administrative motions to seal expert reports filed in conjunction 

with Plaintiff’s motion to strike. See ECF Nos. 134 & 139. 

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. 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)). Accordingly, 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 dispositive motions bear the burden of 

overcoming this presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” 

that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. 

Case 5:13-cv-02390-LHK Document 152 Filed 02/05/15 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No.: 13-CV-02390-LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 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

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. Compelling reasons justifying the sealing of court records 

generally 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 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 

Meanwhile, 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). In general, 

motions to strike are treated as non-dispositive. ASUS Computer Int’l v. Round Rock Research, 

LLC, No. 12-CV-02099 JST (NC), 2014 WL 2810193, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 20, 2014) (citing 

Guzik Technical Enters, Inc. v. W. Digital Corp., 2013 WL 6070414 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013)). 

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to permit sealing of court 

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 has 

adopted the definition of “trade secrets” set forth in the Restatement of Torts, holding that “[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) 

(quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757 cmt. b). “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 

Case 5:13-cv-02390-LHK Document 152 Filed 02/05/15 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No.: 13-CV-02390-LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 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

business. . . .” Id. (ellipses in original). In addition, the 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.

In addition, 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 or protectable as a trade secret or 

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

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. R. 79-5(d)(1). “Within 4 days of 

the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a 

declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material 

is sealable.” Id. R. 79-5(e)(1).

With these standards in mind, the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

Motion ECF No. Document Ruling

134 134-3 Expert Reports of Joel Chansky, 

John Costigan, and Scott 

Harrington

DENIED without prejudice. The request 

to seal is overbroad because it seeks to 

seal non-sealable material, including 

material disclosed in the motion to 

strike. See, e.g., ECF No. 133, at 7:20-

:25. The designating party may submit a 

renewed request to seal that is narrowly 

tailored to seek sealing only of material 

that is sealable. See Civil L. R. 79-5(b).

139 139-3 Exhibit D to Frankel 

Declaration in Support of 

Opposition to Motion to Strike

DENIED without prejudice. The request 

to seal is overbroad because it seeks to 

seal non-sealable material, including 

material disclosed in the motion to 

Case 5:13-cv-02390-LHK Document 152 Filed 02/05/15 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No.: 13-CV-02390-LHK

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 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

strike. See, e.g., ECF No. 133, at 7:20-

:25. The designating party may submit a 

renewed request to seal that is narrowly 

tailored to seek sealing only of material 

that is sealable. See Civil L. R. 79-5(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:13-cv-02390-LHK Document 152 Filed 02/05/15 Page 4 of 4