WhatsApp Inc. et al v. NSO Group Technologies Limited et al
Filing
459
ORDER by Judge Hamilton denying 455 Administrative Motion. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/6/2024)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
WHATSAPP INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
NSO GROUP TECHNOLOGIES
LIMITED, et al.,
Case No. 19-cv-07123-PJH
ORDER RE MOTION TO CLOSE
HEARING
Re: Dkt. 455
Defendants.
12
13
14
Defendants have filed an administrative motion to close the courtroom to the
15
public for the November 7, 2024 hearing on the parties’ cross-motions for summary
16
judgment and plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions. See Dkt. 455. Plaintiffs have filed an
17
opposition to the motion. See Dkt. 458.
18
“Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive
19
motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support
20
secrecy.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir.
21
2006). The “compelling reasons” standard is higher than the “good cause” standard
22
applicable to non-dispositive motions. See id. (“It is important to emphasize the
23
difference between the ‘compelling reasons’ standard and the ‘good cause’ standard.”).
24
In connection with past, non-dispositive motions, the court has granted requests to
25
close hearings to the public. However, based on the material presented in the briefs and
26
in the accompanying motions to seal, the court does not believe that closing the
27
courtroom for the November 7 hearing is justified under the applicable “compelling
28
reasons” standard. Accordingly, defendants’ motion to close the courtroom for the
1
November 7 hearing is DENIED.
2
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
Dated: November 6, 2024
5
6
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
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
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?