Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00941/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00941-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, 

et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON VISION CARE 

INC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00941-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 58

On April 17, 2015, Defendant Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. filed an administrative 

motion to file under seal exhibit 1 to the declaration of William F. Cavanaugh, Jr. in support of 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (“Exhibit”). Dkt. 58. The time to file an opposition to the motion 

to seal has passed.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

“[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

related to a dispositive motion 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, 

Case 4:15-cv-00941-HSG Document 66 Filed 04/28/15 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

‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the 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).

Motions to dismiss are typically treated as dispositive. In re PPA Prods. Liability Litig.,

460 F.3d 1217, 1231 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” 

standard to Defendant’s request to redact the Exhibit in its entirety.

Case 4:15-cv-00941-HSG Document 66 Filed 04/28/15 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

II. DISCUSSION

In its motion to seal, Defendant summarily states that “[t]he Exhibit contains confidential 

and proprietary trade secrets of [Defendant].” Dkt. 58 at 2. In the attached declaration, William F. 

Cavanaugh, Jr. similarly concludes that the Exhibit “is sealable as it contains and refers to 

confidential and proprietary trade secrets of [Defendant].” Dkt. 58-1 at ¶ 3. Defendant seeks to 

redact the entirety of the Exhibit.

Defendant has not carried its burden of articulating “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. Furthermore, the proposed redaction does not 

appear “narrowly tailored” to seal only sealable material, as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. 

The Court therefore DENIES the motion. Defendant may file an amended motion to seal that 

comports with the above-described requirements. If it does not, the Court will not consider the 

Exhibit unless an unredacted version is filed within seven days of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00941-HSG Document 66 Filed 04/28/15 Page 3 of 3