In re NVIDIA Corporation Securities Litigation

Filing 173

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting ( 155 , 162 ) ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2021)

Case 4:18-cv-07669-HSG Document 173 Filed 03/02/21 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

IRON WORKERS LOCAL 580 JOINT
FUNDS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9
v.
10
11

Case No. 18-cv-07669-HSG
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 155, 162

NVIDIA CORPORATION, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
The parties filed two administrative motions to file documents under seal in connection

13
14

with Defendants’ motion to strike. See Dkt. Nos. 155, 162. For the reasons articulated below, the

15

Court GRANTS the motions.

16
17

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal

18

documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana

19

v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the

20

common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records

21

and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of

22

access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this

23

strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion

24

must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

25

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in

26

understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations

27

omitted).

28

Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of

Case 4:18-cv-07669-HSG Document 173 Filed 03/02/21 Page 2 of 3

1

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only

2

tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1179–80 (quotation omitted). This

3

requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information

4

is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th

5

Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific

6

examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966

7

F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).

8

II.

DISCUSSION
The parties seek to seal portions of documents which pertain to Defendants’ motion to

9

strike allegations in Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint based on the account of a former employee

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

referred to as FE-5. Because Plaintiffs cite these allegations for the element of scienter, see e.g.,

12

Dkt. No. 149 (“FAC”) ¶ 222–224, the Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard.

13

Defendants seek to seal FE-5’s name from Exhibits A, B, D, and E that are attached to the

14

McCormack Declaration in Support of Defendants’ motion to strike, and Plaintiffs seek to seal

15

FE-5’s name and contact information from Exhibits A and B attached to the Deming Declaration

16

in Opposition to Defendants’ motion to strike, as well as portions of the Deming Declaration.
Both parties indicate that FE-5 has expressed concern about damage to his professional

17
18

reputation or fear of retaliation. See Dkt. No. 155 at 2; Dkt. No. 162 at 2. The Court finds that the

19

personally identifying information of FE-5, a nonparty, is “not relevant to the disposition of this

20

case” and “implicates important privacy concerns . . . that outweigh the public’s interest in

21

disclosure.” See Hunt v. Cont’l Cas. Co., No. 13-CV-05966-HSG, 2015 WL 5355398, at *2 (N.D.

22

Cal. Sept. 14, 2015) (finding the names of nonparties “implicate[d] important privacy concerns”

23

and those names were “not relevant to the disposition of th[e] case”); see also In re Bofi Holding,

24

Inc. Sec. Litig., 2016 WL 5390533, at *16 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2016) (finding “fear [of] retaliation

25

and potential harassment” constitute “compelling reasons that outweigh the public’s interest in

26

disclosure” of the identities of confidential witnesses). Further, the Court finds that the proposed

27

redactions are “narrowly tailored” to seal only sealable material, as required by Civil Local Rule

28

79–5.
2

Case 4:18-cv-07669-HSG Document 173 Filed 03/02/21 Page 3 of 3

1
2
3

III.

CONCLUSION
Because the Court finds that the parties have established compelling reasons to seal the

limited portions of the documents, the motions to file under seal are GRANTED. The Court
DIRECTS the parties to file redacted versions of these documents on the public docket within

4
seven days of this order.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7

Dated: 3/2/2021

8
9
10

______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3