Vaovasa et al v. SFO Good-Nite Inn, LLC

Filing 52

ORDER by Judge ARMSTRONG denying 45 Motion to Seal Document (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2008)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION No. C 08-1171 SBA ORDER [Docket No. 45]

SIAUPIA VAOVASA; ELISAPETA VAOVASA; and LEALOFI PENITITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiffs,

SFO GOOD-NITE INN LLC, Defendant.

The Court DENIES without prejudice Defendant's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal (the "Motion") [Docket No. 45], because movant has failed to advance any legal argument that the Court has the authority, under the "compelling reasons" standard to seal any of the documents proposed for sealing. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (" `compelling reasons' must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion"). Defendant also fails to establish why redaction alone is insufficient to protect confidential business information. See Local Rule 79-5(c). Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(e), the Clerk of the Court is directed to notify the submitting party to retrieve the documents; in the alternative, the submitting party may request the Clerk to return them by United States mail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 11, 2008

_________________________________ Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge