Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02989/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02989-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK

ORDER ON PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 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

WILLIAM PHILIPS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK 

ORDER ON PROCEDURES FOR 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 

FILE UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 172

“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)). Thus, 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 motions that are “more than tangentially 

related to the underlying cause of action,” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 

1099 (9th Cir. 2016), bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons

supported by specific factual findings” that outweigh the general history of access and the public 

policies favoring disclosure, Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Compelling reasons justifying the 

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 187 Filed 08/31/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK

ORDER ON PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 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

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). However, “[t]he 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.

Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits 

of a case,” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 

1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court 

records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or 

only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Parties moving to seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the 

merits of a case must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. 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); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, 

unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., 

Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

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) 

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 187 Filed 08/31/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK

ORDER ON PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 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

(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 

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

Further, 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, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise 

entitled to protection under the law.” Civil 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.

Accordingly, the Court will not grant requests to seal that are overbroad or that include the 

sealing of public information contained within public documents. Likewise, the Court will not 

seal entire documents that contain both sealable and non-sealable information. 

To facilitate compliance with these rules and the standards established within the Ninth 

Circuit, the Court hereby establishes the following procedures for filing administrative motions to 

file under seal in this case:

The parties shall file all administrative motions to file under seal as joint motions. Prior to 

filing any such joint motions, lead counsel for both parties must meet and confer to decide what 

information the parties will request to file under seal. The parties must file declarations from lead 

counsel that confirm compliance with this order with each motion to file under seal. 

The parties shall file concurrent with the administrative motion to file under seal all 

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 187 Filed 08/31/16 Page 3 of 4
4

Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK

ORDER ON PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER 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

necessary declarations establishing that the information sought to be sealed is sealable. For 

motions to file under seal relating to dispositive motions, the declarations shall set forth the 

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that the parties believe outweigh the 

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1178-79. For motions to file under seal relating to nondispositive motions, the declarations shall 

set forth the “particularized” reasons that the parties believe that “specific prejudice or harm will 

result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd, 307 F.3d at 1210–11. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2016.

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 187 Filed 08/31/16 Page 4 of 4