Accenture LLP v. Sidhu

Filing 44

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' PROPOSED SEALING OF THE RECORD re 43 Stipulation filed by Hardev Sidhu (tehlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/13/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

ACCENTURE LLP,

6
7
8
9

Plaintiff,
v.

NO. C10-2977TEH
ORDER REGARDING THE
PARTIES’ PROPOSED SEALING
OF THE RECORD

HARDEV SIDHU,
Defendant.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
This matter comes before the Court via a joint stipulation and proposed order,

12 submitted by the parties to this Court on October 11, 2011. The parties have stipulated to
13 sealing of the record and files for this case as part of their settlement agreement, and now
14 wish to seal the entire case record, including all pleadings and submissions by the parties.
15

Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records

16 and documents, including judicial records and documents. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,
17 435 U.S. 589, 597 n. 7 (1978). Though the right of access to judicial records is not absolute,
18 and some records have been traditionally kept secret for public policy reasons, there is, in
19 general, a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. Kamakana v. City and
20 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). In order to overcome this strong
21 presumption, it is necessary that a party or parties “‘articulate[] compelling reasons supported
22 by specific factual findings “that outweigh the general history of access and the public
23 policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-1179. Examples of such
24 compelling reasons are the potential for improper use of court records, such as to gratify
25 private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.
26 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a
27 litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without
28 more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

1

Though the parties mention, in their stipulation, the potential difficulty the Defendant

2 in this case may face going forward in regards to finding employment, the Court does not, at
3 this time, have sufficient facts on the record to meet the “compelling reasons” standard
4 described above. For this reason, the Court now ORDERS the parties to submit briefing to
5 this Court, detailing for the Court what compelling reasons there may be why the record in
6 this case should be sealed. Such briefing shall be submitted no later than Monday,
7 November 14, 2011.
8
9 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: 10/13/2011
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2