United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE LINDSEY, an individual,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED AIRLINES, INC., 

Defendant. /

No. C 17-00753 WHA

ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

IN CONNECTION WITH

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff has filed an administrative motion to file under seal in connection with

defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 104). This order resolves the

administrative motion. 

In this circuit, courts start with a “strong presumption in favor of access” when deciding

whether to seal records. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To

seal judicial records in connection with a dispositive motion requires “compelling reasons

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

policies favoring disclosure.” See id. at 1178–79 (quotations and citations omitted).

 Plaintiff moved to file under seal the entirety of his opposition to defendant’s motion for

summary judgment, in addition to Exhibits 19, 21, 28, 43 and 59 in support of his opposition,

pursuant to defendant’s confidentiality designations. Defendant responded that Exhibits 21 and

28 did not require sealing (Dkt. No. 106). 

As an initial matter, this order DENIES defendant’s request that Exhibits 19, 43 and 59

— and portions of plaintiff’s opposition referencing or quoting those exhibits — remain under
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

seal until the Court decides defendant’s motions in limine. Whether these documents are

admissibile at trial is irrelevant to the instant sealing motion.

Defendant contends that unsealing Exhibit 19, a settlement agreement entered into

between Lindsey, Lindsey’s ex-wife, and Continental Airlines, “would permanently deny

United the confidentiality for which the three parties bargained.” Defendant argues that “[o]f

particular sensitivity” are (1) the settlement dollar amounts; (2) any mention or provision

relating directly to Lindsey’s ex-wife; and (3) the names and personal identifying information of

two non-parties contained in Section 2(d) of the settlement agreement. Defendant’s request to

seal the dates of hire and dates of birth contained in Section 2(d) of the settlement agreement is

GRANTED. Defendant’s request is otherwise DENIED.

Defendant also seeks to maintain under seal those portions of Exhibits 43 and 59 which

either reference or transcribe a recording of a 2016 United management meeting. Defendant

argues that plaintiff has submitted the evidence solely as an attempt to “improperly and illegally

smear and harm reputation.” This order disagrees. Defendant has not shown compelling

reasons to maintain these documents under seal and the request is accordingly DENIED.

Plaintiff shall file his opposition to defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and

Exhibits 21, 28, 43, and 59 thereto, on the public record by MAY 18. By that same date,

plaintiff shall file a redacted version of Exhibit 19 which comports with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2018. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE