Nathalie Thuy Van v. Language Line Services, Inc. et al

Filing 131

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 117 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal and for Plaintiff to Re-File Exhibits (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/16/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK

NATHALIE THUY VAN,

ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL AND FOR
PLAINTIFF TO RE-FILE EXHIBITS

v.

15

LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES, INC. et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
18

Before the Court is Defendants’ administrative motion to seal portions of various exhibits

19

Plaintiff—who is pro se—attempted to file in connection with Plaintiff’s since-denied motion for

20

sanctions. ECF No. 117; see ECF No. 106 (denying Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions).

21

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and

22

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

23

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597

24

& n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in favor

25

of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

26

Records attached to nondispositive motions, such as Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions, are

27
28

1
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL AND FOR PLAINTIFF TO RE-FILE EXHIBITS

1

not subject to the strong presumption of access. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Because the

2

documents attached to nondispositive motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to

3

the underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good cause” standard

4

of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179-80 (internal quotation marks

5

omitted). The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice

6

or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors

7

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Civ.

8

P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated

9

reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In addition, parties moving to seal documents must comply with the procedures established

12

by Civil Local Rule 79-5. Pursuant to that rule, a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request

13

that establishes the document is “sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or

14

otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L. R. 79-5(b). “The request must be

15

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-

16

5(d).” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), moreover, requires the submitting party to attach a “proposed

17

order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material” and that “lists in table format

18

each document or portion thereof that is sought to be sealed,” as well as an “unredacted version of

19

the document” that “indicate[s], by highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the

20

document that have been omitted from the redacted version.” Id. R. 79-5(d)(1). “Within 4 days of

21

the filing of the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a

22

declaration as required by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material

23

is sealable.” Id. R. 79-5(e)(1).

24

With the foregoing in mind, the Court rules on the instant motion as follows:

25
26
27
28

2
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL AND FOR PLAINTIFF TO RE-FILE EXHIBITS

2
3
4
5

Motion
117

ECF No.
119

117

117

119-1,
119-2
119-3,
119-4
120

117

120-1

117

120-2

117

1

120-3

117

120-4

117

6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Document
Ex. C to Plaintiff’s Declaration in
Support of Motion for Sanctions
Ex. D to Plaintiff’s Declaration in
Support of Motion for Sanctions
Ex. E to Plaintiff’s Declaration in
Support of Motion for Sanctions
Ex. F to Plaintiff’s Declaration in
Support of Motion for Sanctions
Ex. P to Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Declaration in Support of Motion
for Sanctions
Ex. Q to Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Declaration in Support of Motion
for Sanctions
Ex. R to Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Declaration in Support of Motion
for Sanctions
Ex. S to Plaintiff’s Supplemental
Declaration in Support of Motion
for Sanctions

Ruling
GRANTED as to proposed redactions.
GRANTED as to proposed redactions.
GRANTED as to proposed redactions.
GRANTED as to proposed redactions.
GRANTED as to proposed redactions.
GRANTED as to proposed redactions.
GRANTED as to proposed redactions.
GRANTED as to proposed redactions.

12

Within seven (7) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall, consistent with the above

13

rulings, re-file her declaration and supplemental declaration supporting her motion for sanctions

14

along with the accompanying exhibits. Specifically, Plaintiff is to file exhibits A through T, with

15

exhibits C, D, E, F, P, Q, R, and S redacted in the manner ordered above. See ECF Nos. 119 (Ex.

16

C); 119-1, 119-2 (Ex. D); 119-3, 119-4 (Ex. E); 120 (Ex. F); 120-1 (Ex. P); 120-2 (Ex. Q); 120-3

17

(Ex. R); 120-4 (Ex. S). Plaintiff should tab each exhibit with its corresponding letter.

18

In light of the Court’s ruling, the Court denies as moot Plaintiff’s prior requests to file the

19

above exhibits. See ECF Nos. 127, 128, 129.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23
24

Dated: September 16, 2015
______________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

3
Case No. 14-CV-03791-LHK
ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL AND FOR PLAINTIFF TO RE-FILE EXHIBITS