AT&T Mobility II, LLC v. Pestano

Filing 31

ORDER by Judge Alsup denying 17 Motion (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2008)

AT&T Mobility II, LLC v. Pestano

Doc. 31

Case 3:07-cv-05463-WHA

Document 31

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AT&T MOBILITY II, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN PESTANO, an individual, Defendant. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. / / FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

No. C 07-05463 WHA ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL

Plaintiff moves to dismiss claims under FRCP 12(b)(6). "If matters outside the pleadings are considered, [a] motion to dismiss is to be treated as one for summary judgment." San Pedro Hotel Co ., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 477 (9th Cir.1998). As plaintiff's motion depends on matters outside of the pleadings it will be treated as a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's request to file documents under seal is DENIED. In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, "compelling reasons" are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial. Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant first shows a "compelling reason," a

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:07-cv-05463-WHA

Document 31

Filed 02/04/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

substantially higher standard than "good cause." Only social security numbers, names of juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment proceedings, which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden. In their motion to seal, plaintiff has listed five

documents to be filed under seal. Plaintiff has given no "compelling reason" for any of the documents to be filed under seal by showing the courtroom would be closed if such documents were introduced as evidence. Most of the documents have been shown to already be a part of the public record indicating plaintiff has made little effort to particularize its request. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's request is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 4, 2008.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2