Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02269/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02269-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

Case No.14-CV-02269-LHK 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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

ADRIENNE MOORE,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.14-CV-02269-LHK 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE MOTIONS TO SEAL 

Dkt. No. 55, 56, 59, 80, 82, 91, 92, 97, 101

Before the Court are administrative motions to seal brought by Plaintiff Adrienne Moore 

ECF Nos. 55, 56, 91, 92, 101 and by Defendant Apple, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Apple”), ECF Nos. 

80, 97. The parties seek to seal briefing and exhibits filed by the parties in connection with 

Plaintiff’s motion for class certification, ECF No. 60. Also before the Court is the parties’ 

stipulation to extend Defendant’s time within which to file a declaration in support of its sealing 

motion. ECF No. 59.

1

In addition to the parties’ motions, the Court received declarations in support of the 

parties’ motions from third parties, which the Court considers below. See ECF Nos. 62 (AT&T); 

 

1

The Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulation. ECF No. 59. 

Case 5:14-cv-02269-LHK Document 112 Filed 08/04/15 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No.14-CV-02269-LHK 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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

64, 65 (Google).

“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 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 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 secret.” 

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. Dispositive motions include “motions 

for summary judgment.” Id.

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 for class certification are considered nondispositive. See In re HighCase 5:14-cv-02269-LHK Document 112 Filed 08/04/15 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No.14-CV-02269-LHK 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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

Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 5486230, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 

2013) (“As Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification is a non-dispositive motion, the Court finds 

that the parties need only demonstrate ‘good cause’ in order to support their requests to seal.”). 

The Court therefore applies the “good cause” standard to the parties’ requests.

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 

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 

Case 5:14-cv-02269-LHK Document 112 Filed 08/04/15 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No.14-CV-02269-LHK 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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

required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” 

Id. R. 79-5(e)(1).

Below, the Court applies the “good cause” standard to the parties’ requests to seal 

documents in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. With this standard in mind, 

the Court rules on the instant motions as follows:

Motion 

to Seal

Standard Document Ruling

55 Good 

Cause Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Class Certification

DENIED without prejudice as the requests are 

not narrowly tailored.

56 Good 

Cause Katriel Declaration 

Exhibit 1–2; 4–13; 16; 

18–23; 25–27

DENIED without prejudice as the requests are

not narrowly tailored. The Court will not seal 

entire documents that contain non-sealable 

information. Any renewed request shall 

conform to Civil Local Rule 79-5 and provide 

proposed redactions. 

80 Good 

Cause Defendant’s Opposition DENIED without prejudice as the requests are not narrowly tailored.

80 Good 

Cause Kohlman Decl. and 

Supporting Exhibits 1–5

DENIED without prejudice as the requests are 

not narrowly tailored.

80 Good 

Cause Cheung Declaration and 

Supporting Exhibits 1–8; 

11–14

DENIED without prejudice as the requests are 

not narrowly tailored.

82 Good 

Cause Katriel Declaration 

Exhibits 1–2

DENIED without prejudice as the requests are 

not narrowly tailored.

91 Good 

Cause Plaintiff’s Reply DENIED without prejudice as the requests are not narrowly tailored.

92 Good 

Cause Katriel Declaration 

Exhibits 1–7

DENIED without prejudice as the requests are 

not narrowly tailored.

97 Good 

Cause Defendant’s Surreply and 

Supporting Exhibits

DENIED without prejudice as the requests are 

not narrowly tailored

101 Good 

Cause Plaintiff’s Sur-surreply 

and Supporting Exhibits

DENIED without prejudice as the requests are 

not narrowly tailored

The parties’ requests to seal are overbroad and include the sealing of public information 

Case 5:14-cv-02269-LHK Document 112 Filed 08/04/15 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No.14-CV-02269-LHK 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 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

contained within public documents in this case. The Court will not seal entire documents that 

contain both sealable and non-sealable information. The parties are cautioned that a showing of 

“good cause” requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if

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

sealing motions shall be filed within 7 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 4, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02269-LHK Document 112 Filed 08/04/15 Page 5 of 5