Frost v. LG Corporation et al

Filing 78

ORDER DENYING 75 SEALING MOTION. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 2/27/2017. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/27/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

A. FROST, et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-05206-BLF

Plaintiffs,
9
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

10
11

LG ELECTRONICS INC., et al.,

[Re: ECF 75]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file under seal portions of the

14
15

documents in support of their opposition to a sanction motion. Mot., ECF 75. For the reasons

16

stated below, the motion is DENIED.

17
18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

19

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

20

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records bears the

21

burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific

22

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

23

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when such

24

“‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

25

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

26

secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However,

27

“[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

28

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its

1

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is

2

‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrslyer Grp., LLC,

3

809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).
“Despite this strong preference for public access, [the Ninth Circuit has] carved out an

4
5

exception,” id. at 1097, for judicial records attached to motions that are “tangentially related to the

6

merits of a case,” id. at 1101. Parties moving to seal such records need only make a

7

“particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).
In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local

9

Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party

12

seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of

13

articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e).

14

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ sealing motion and declaration of Matthew Weiler in

15
16

support thereof. According to the declaration, all the portions should be sealed because they

17

contain confidential or privileged information of Defendants. ECF 75-1 ¶ 3. Moreover, Plaintiffs

18

claim that they take no position on the question of whether the redacted information warrants

19

sealing. Mot. 2. It thus appears that Defendants are the Designating Parties but Plaintiffs have not

20

filed a proof of service showing that Defendants were served in accordance with the Local Rules.

21

Civil L.R. 79-5(e). ECF filing on its own does not notify parties that an administrative sealing

22

motion has been filed, unlike other ECF filings with the Court. As such, Defendants were not

23

offered an opportunity to file a declaration in support of this motion.

24

III.

25

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motion at ECF 75 is DENIED without prejudice.

26

Plaintiffs may renew their motion to seal and serve Defendants so to provide Defendants an

27

opportunity to submit a declaration in support of the motion. Civil L.R. 79-5(e). The motion shall

28

be renewed no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. If the motion is not renewed in time
2

1

or if no declaration is submitted within four days of the filing of the renewed motion, Plaintiffs

2

shall file the unredacted documents in the public record. Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1), (2).

3
4
5
6

Dated: February 27, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
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
3