Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02329/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02329-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: 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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FREE RANGE CONTENT, INC., ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GOOGLE, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02329-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

[Re: ECF 244]

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal an Exhibit attached 

to Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of settlement. ECF 244 (“Mot.”). The sealing 

motion is unopposed. For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to 

seal Exhibit B to the Declaration of Robert F. Lopez at ECF 246-2. 

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Historically, there is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. 

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)). A party seeking to seal 

judicial records bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling 

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

public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files 

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. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 

(1978)). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 248 Filed 03/07/18 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

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 

court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a 

‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 

Chrslyer Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).

“Despite this strong preference for public access, [the Ninth Circuit has] carved out an 

exception,” id. at 1097, for judicial records attached to motions that are “tangentially related to the 

merits of a case,” id. at 1101. Parties moving to seal such records need only make a 

“particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138). 

In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local 

Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing 

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party 

seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of 

articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e). 

II. DISCUSSION

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ sealing motion and the declaration of Robert F. Lopez 

in support thereof. See ECF 244, 244-1. Because the sealing motion relates to materials filed with 

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement, which is more than 

tangentially related to the merits of the case, the instant motion is resolved under the compelling 

reasons standard. Philliben v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 14-CV-05615-JST, 2016 WL 9185000, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2016); Kiersey v. eBay, Inc., No. 12-CV-01200-JST, 2013 WL 5609318, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2013) (“[A] motion seeking the Court’s preliminary approval of 

the settlement of the case may be effectively dispositive.”); See also Johnson v. Quantum 

Learning Network, Inc., No. 15-CV-05013-LHK, 2016 WL 4472993, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22,

2016). 

Plaintiffs move to seal Exhibit B to the Declaration of Robert F. Lopez in support of 

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary approval of class settlement. See ECF 246-2 (“Exhibit B”). 

Exhibit B contains confidential settlement information regarding the conditions triggering 

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 248 Filed 03/07/18 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

Defendant’s right to terminate and withdraw from the Settlement Agreement. See generally Mot. 

Plaintiffs are not clear as to which standard applies to their administrative motion, arguing that 

“Courts frequently find good cause to seal confidential settlement information.” Id. (citing Phillips 

v. GMC, 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002)) (emphasis added). However, Plaintiffs also cite to 

relevant authority from this District where the court found compelling reasons to seal similar 

confidential information in a settlement agreement to discourage manipulation of the settlement. 

See Mot. at 1 (citing Thomas v. Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., No. 14-CV-01160-JST, 2016 

WL 3879193, at *7 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016)). 

In Thomas, Judge Tigar granted the parties’ motion to file under seal the conditions under 

which the defendant may terminate the settlement, finding that compelling reasons existed to keep 

the information confidential “in order to prevent third parties from utilizing it for the improper 

purpose of obstructing the settlement and obtaining higher payouts.” 2016 WL 3879193, at *7 

(N.D. Cal. July 18, 2016) (citing In re Online DVD-Rental Antitrust Litig., 779 F.3d 934, 948 (9th 

Cir. 2015)). This Court has reviewed Exhibit B to the Lopez Declaration in this case, and agrees 

with the reasoning in Thomas that compelling reasons exist to seal this information. The Court 

also finds that Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions are narrowly tailored. See Civil L.R. 79-5(b)

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal at ECF 244 is GRANTED. The 

redacted version of Exhibit B filed into the public record by Plaintiffs in connection with their 

motion for preliminary approval of settlement (ECF 246-2) is consistent with this order, so no 

further documents need to be filed. 

Dated: March 7, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02329-BLF Document 248 Filed 03/07/18 Page 3 of 3