Nazif v. Computer Sciences Corporation

Filing 102

ORDER REGARDING PENDING MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 6/22/15. (emclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/22/2015)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

FRED NAZIF, an individual

9

No. C-13-5498 EMC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER REGARDING
MOTIONS TO SEAL

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION, a
Nevada Corporation, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive,

(Docket Nos. 70, 72, 82, 84, 88)

12
13

PENDING

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16
Pending before the Court are various administrative motions to file documents or deposition
17
testimony under seal in connection with this Court’s consideration of the parties’ summary judgment
18
motions. See Docket Nos. 70, 72, 82, 84, 88. The Court issued its order on the substance of the
19
summary judgment motions on June 17, 2015, and entered final judgment the same day. Docket
20
Nos. 99-100.
21
When deciding the pending motions to seal, the Court will apply the “compelling reasons”
22
standard. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)
23
(holding that a party seeking to seal a judicial record submitted in connection with a dispositive
24
motion bears the burden of establishing that “compelling reasons” support the sealing request). As
25
this Court has noted previously, there is a strong presumption in favor of the public disclosure of
26
court records, and thus the “compelling reasons” standard is construed strictly: Only documents
27
containing “exceptionally sensitive information will be kept from the public.” O’Connor v. Uber
28

1

Techs, Inc., No. 13-cv-3826 EMC, 2015 WL 355496, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2015) (emphasis in

2

original) (citations omitted).

3

Any party that wishes to maintain materials under seal that were filed in conjunction with the

4

recently adjudicated summary judgment motions must file a single declaration that explains if, and

5

how, the “compelling reasons” standard is met for each document and portion of a document sought

6

to be maintained under seal. The Court notes that an entire document is not necessarily sealable

7

simply because some portion of that document may appropriately be maintained under seal. Thus,

8

any such declaration filed shall state with specificity precisely what portion of a document contains

9

“exceptionally sensitive information” (using page and line numbers, or the nearest equivalent where
possible) and specifically why that specific information is a “trade secret” or otherwise subject to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

sealing under the compelling reasons standard. See O’Connor, 2015 WL 355496, at *1; see also

12

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv-1846-LHK,

13

2012 WL 2913669, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2012). The declaration shall clearly identify those

14

documents, or portions of documents, that the party no longer seeks to maintain under seal.

15

The requested declaration(s), if submitted, must be filed with the Court no later than July 1,

16

2015. So that the parties can appropriately justify any sealing request with the requisite level of

17

detail, the parties may file the requested declaration(s) under seal.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: June 22, 2015

22
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

2