Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03454/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-03454-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

VACC, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JON BYRON DAVIS,

Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-03454-JCS 

ORDER REGARDING 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 

UNDER SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 7

Plaintiff VACC, Inc. moves to file a transcript of a sealed settlement proceeding in a 

previous case under seal in this action as Exhibit 1 of VACC’s complaint. As a general rule, a 

party must show “compelling reasons” to file documents under seal in order to overcome the 

“‘strong presumption in favor of [public] access,’” and “the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] 

the competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 

secret.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003)) (second alteration in 

original). Moreover, under this Court’s local rules, requests to file under seal “must be narrowly 

tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b).

Here, VACC notes only that “[o]n its face, the transcript is of a sealed proceeding and 

contains terms of a confidential settlement agreement.” Woo Decl. (dkt. 7-1) ¶ 3. The 

confidentially of settlement discussions may well constitute a compelling reason to seal in some 

circumstances, but it is difficult to discern here compelling reasons to seal the entire transcript 

when VACC discloses significant portions of those discussions in its publicly filed complaint. 

The Court concludes that under these circumstances the request to seal the transcript as a whole, 

rather than redacting only those portions of it that have not otherwise been disclosed and would 

risk real harm to the parties if disclosed, is not a narrowly tailored request supported by 

Case 3:18-cv-03454-JCS Document 28 Filed 11/13/18 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

compelling reasons. 

Because the issue implicates not only VACC’s interests but also those of Defendant Jon 

Byron Davis, the following procedure will be used to propose redactions: no later than November 

27, 2018, either party may file under seal proposed redactions supported by a declaration stating 

compelling reasons for the redacted material to remain under seal. The Court will then decide 

which if any portions of the transcript should remain under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2018

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:18-cv-03454-JCS Document 28 Filed 11/13/18 Page 2 of 2