Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00292/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-00292-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Quincy Bioscience, LLC
Defendant
Phillip Racies
Plaintiff

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

PHILLIP RACIES,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-00292-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 57

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Phillip Racies’ motion to file under seal his motion 

for partial summary judgment and an associated exhibit. Dkt. No. 57. No opposition to the 

motion to seal was filed, and the time to do so 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, 

‘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,’ 

Case 4:15-cv-00292-HSG Document 61 Filed 11/10/15 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

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 its 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 motion for partial summary judgment is a dispositive motion, the Court 

applies the “compelling reasons” standard to the pending motions to seal.

II. DISCUSSION

On November 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to file under seal his motion 

for partial summary judgment, and exhibit B to the declaration of Patricia N. Syverson in support 

Case 4:15-cv-00292-HSG Document 61 Filed 11/10/15 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

thereof. Dkt. No. 57. Plaintiff seeks to redact the entirety of the documents. Id.

As justification for sealing the documents, Plaintiff states that his motion for partial 

summary judgment “references and quotes extensively from the Expert Report of Richard P. 

Bazinet, Ph.D. that has been designated ‘Confidential’ [under the parties’ Protective Order] 

because it references documents that Defendant has designated as ‘Confidential.’” Dkt. No. 57-1 

¶ 3. Exhibit B to the declaration of Patricia N. Syverson is Dr. Bazinet’s expert report. Id. ¶ 4. 

Designating party and Defendant Quincy Biosciences, LLC did not file a declaration in support of 

Plaintiff’s motion to seal, as required in this situation under the Local Rules. See Civ. L.R. 79-

5(e)(1) (“Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the 

Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that 

all of the designated material is sealable.”). 

The Court therefore DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to seal. If Defendant does not file a 

responsive declaration in accordance with the Local Rules within four days of the date of this 

Order, Plaintiff may publicly file his motion for partial summary judgment and exhibit B to the 

Syverson Declaration. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). In the future, the parties are directed to strictly 

comply with Local Rule 79-5 when seeking to file documents under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-00292-HSG Document 61 Filed 11/10/15 Page 3 of 3