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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAURA FUJISAWA, et al.

Plaintiff(s),

v.

COMPASS VISION, INC., et

al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C07-5642 BZ

Related Cases: C07-3431 BZ

 C08-4118 BZ

 C09-2016 BZ

ORDER RE MAXIMUS’S

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

SEAL

IT IS ORDERED that Maximus’s motion to seal portions of

the record it has filed in support of its summary judgment

motion is DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART. Civil Local

Rule 79-5(a) provides that a court may issue a sealing order

“upon request that establishes that the document, or portions

thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” The Ninth

Circuit has held that:

“the strong presumption of access to judicial records

applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions

for summary judgment and related attachments. We adopted

this principle of disclosure because the resolution of a

dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary

Case 3:09-cv-02016-BZ Document 83 Filed 07/02/10 Page 1 of 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

2

judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the

“public's understanding of the judicial process and of

significant public events.” Valley Broadcasting, 798 F.2d

at 1294; accord Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135-36 (noting that “

‘summary judgment adjudicates substantive rights and

serves as a substitute for trial’ ”) (quoting Rushford v.

The New Yorker Magazine, 846 F.2d 249, 252 (4th

Cir.1988)). Thus, “compelling reasons” must be shown to

seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. The “compelling reasons”

standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or

its attachments, were previously filed under seal or

protective order. Id.” 

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179

(9th Cir. 2006). If a party requests that a document remain

under seal because it contains confidential business

information, it must show “that disclosure would cause

significant harm to its competitive and financial position. 

That showing requires specific demonstrations of fact,

supported where possible by affidavits and concrete examples,

rather than broad, conclusory allegations of harm.” Contratto

v. Ethicon, Inc., 227 F.R.D. 304, 307-08 (N.D. Cal. 2005). 

In the interests of expeditiously resolving the motions

for summary judgment, the motion to seal is GRANTED with

respect to Exhibit M to the Meier Declaration and Exhibits N,

O, P, Q and R to the Matthews Declaration. However, the Court

believes that plaintiffs have placed certain aspects of their

medical history at issue by filing these lawsuits and, in view

of the public safety issues involved, may need to reconsider

some or all of this ruling.

The motion is DENIED as to the remaining exhibits to the

Matthew and Meier Declarations as to which sealing is sought. 

While there may be information in those exhibits for which

sealing is appropriate, the Maximus proposal is not narrowly

Case 3:09-cv-02016-BZ Document 83 Filed 07/02/10 Page 2 of 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

3

tailored to protect that information. It is hard to conceive

how documents such as Exhibit B to the Matthews Declaration, a

copy of the State of California’s Standard Agreement with

Maximus, could be completely sealed.

As to Exhibit J, the Court does not believe that Business

and Professions Code Sections 156.1 and 2770.12 require that

this document be sealed in its entirety. First, the ability

to seal documents in federal court is governed by federal law. 

Second, the Court reads these sections as focusing on

documents pertaining to the treatment and rehabilitation of

individuals covered by the programs; not to general guidelines

for the provision of such services which do not pertain to any

of the individuals being treated. The Court cannot find 

Business and Professions Code Section 1449.

By July 9, 2010, Maximus shall file revised documents

which conform with this sealing order.

Dated: July 2, 2001

 Bernard Zimmerman

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\FUJISAWA V. COMPASS VISION\ORDER RE MAXIMUS MOT TO SEAL.wpd

Case 3:09-cv-02016-BZ Document 83 Filed 07/02/10 Page 3 of 3