Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02302/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02302-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Delfino Green & Green
Counter-defendant
Workers Compensation Solutions, LLC
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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

DELFINO GREEN & GREEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

WORKERS COMPANSATION 

SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02302-HSG 

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 10, 22

On May 28, 2015, Defendant and Counter-Claimant Workers Compensation Solutions, 

LLC filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of its answer and counter-claim. 

Dkt. No. 10. On July 7, 2015, Defendant filed a second administrative motion to file under seal 

portions of Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Delfino Green & Green’s complaint, which is 

attached to Defendant’s notice of removal. Dkt. No. 22. The time to oppose the motions 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.” 

Case 4:15-cv-02302-HSG Document 25 Filed 07/13/15 Page 1 of 4
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

Id. at 1178-79 (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, 

‘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).

Because Plaintiff’s complaint and Defendant’s answer and counter-claim are the pleadings 

on which this action is based, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard to Defendant’s

Case 4:15-cv-02302-HSG Document 25 Filed 07/13/15 Page 2 of 4
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

motions to seal. See In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., No. 06-cv-06110-SBA, 2008 WL 

1859067, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (applying “compelling reasons” standard to request to 

seal complaint).

II. DISCUSSION

In its motions to seal, Defendant argues that the “compelling reasons” standard is met here 

because the portions of Plaintiff’s complaint and Defendant’s answer and counter-claim sought to 

be sealed reference (1) a confidential settlement agreement; (2) a confidential financial agreement; 

and (3) confidential financial information. Dkt. No. 10 at 2; Dkt. No. 22 at 2. Defendant further 

argues that disclosure of this information could “subject [Defendant] to a claim that the 

confidentiality terms in its agreements with third parties have been breached” and “might harm 

[Defendant’s] ability to conduct its business.” Dkt. No. 10 at 5. 

The Court finds that the redacted portions of Plaintiff’s complaint and Defendant’s answer

and counter-claim contain sealable information. See Transperfect Global, Inc. v. MotionPoint 

Corp., No. 10-cv-02590-CW, 2014 WL 4950082, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2014) (granting 

motion to seal documents containing confidential financial information); Phillips ex rel. Estates of 

Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[C]ourts have granted 

protective orders to protect confidential settlement agreements.”). The Court further finds that the 

proposed redactions are “narrowly tailored” to seal only sealable material, as required by Civil 

Local Rule 79-5. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal pages 2:16, 4:5-19, 

8:7-16, 8:19-20, 8:21-25, 9:1-2, 9:6-7, 9:18, 9:23-24, 10:5-7, 12:11-21, 13:14-15; 13:16, and 14:18 

of Defendant’s answer and counter-claim. The Court also GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal 

pages 2:20, 3:2-3, 3:4, 3:5, and 3:27-28 of Plaintiff’s complaint, attached as exhibit 1 to 

Defendant’s notice of removal, as well as paragraph 1 of exhibit A thereto. 

//

//

//

//

//

Case 4:15-cv-02302-HSG Document 25 Filed 07/13/15 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Within four days of the date of this Order, Defendant shall file under seal the unredacted 

versions of Plaintiff’s complaint, attached as exhibit 1 to its notice of removal, and Defendant’s 

answer and counter-claim. Defendant shall also file redacted versions of those documents in the 

public record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-02302-HSG Document 25 Filed 07/13/15 Page 4 of 4