1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAN VIGDOR, et al., Case No. 16-cv-05326-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 150, 154, 158, 159, 163 10 SUPER LUCKY CASINO, INC., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal 13 documents in connection with the parties’ motions in limine. Dkt. Nos. 150, 154, 158, 159, 163. 14 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions to file under seal, as 15 described below. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 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). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 1 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 2 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 3 Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

(1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 4 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 5 without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

6 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 7 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 8 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”

at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 9 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 10 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

, 1210–11 (9th 11 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 12 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966

, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 14 II. DISCUSSION 15 Because the parties move to file documents related to their motions in limine, the Court 16 will apply the lower good cause standard. 17 The parties have provided good cause for sealing portions of the various documents listed 18 below because they contain confidential business and financial information relating to the 19 operations of Defendants. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 20

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2012); see also Agency Solutions.Com, LLC v. TriZetto 21 Group, Inc.,

(E.D. Cal. 2011); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard 22 Co., No. C 13-159 CW,

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014) (holding sensitive financial 23 information falls within the class of documents that may be filed under seal). Further, several of 24 the current sealing requests seek to seal information materially identical to prior sealing requests, 25 which this Court granted. See Dkt. No. 143. The Court sees no reason why it should here find 26 that information it previously deemed sealable no longer meets the standard. 27 However, as detailed below, a number of the parties’ proposed sealing requests are based 1 not sufficient to establish that the material is sealable. See Civ. L. R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). And for 2 many of these sealing requests, the designating party failed to file a declaration in support of 3 sealing the portions sought to be redacted, and therefore did not comply with Civil Local Rule 79- 4 5(e). See Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). The Court denies the sealing of documents relating to material 5 designated “Confidential” for which the designating party failed to provide support. 6 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:

7 Docket Number Document Portions Sought Ruling Public/(Sealed) to be Sealed 8 Defendants’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 150 151-1/(150-5) Excerpts of Defendants’ Pages and lines: DENIED: no supporting 9 Motion in Limine No. 1 2:7-16; 2:19; Rule 79-5(e)(1) 2:22–24; 3:1–2 declaration from 10 Plaintiffs

11 151-2/(150-6) Excerpts of Defendants’ Pages and lines: GRANTED: Motion in Limine No. 2 1:20–24; 2:24–25; confidential business 12 3:22–25; 4:11–13; information 4:22–23 13 Entire documents Exhibits A-E to the Entire Exhibits DENIED as to Exhibits 14 sealed/(150-7, 150- Declaration of Julia A–D: no supporting 8, 150-9, 150-10, Allen ISO Defendants’ Rule 79-5(e)(1) 15 150-11) Motions in Limine Nos. 1 declaration from and 2 Plaintiffs 16 GRANTED as to Exhibit E: confidential 17 business information 18 Plaintiffs’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 154 19 154-3/(154-4) Excerpts of Plaintiffs’ Pages and lines: GRANTED: 20 Motion in Limine No. 2 1:16–20; 1:23– confidential business 2:1; 2:18–20 information 21 Entire document Exhibit 1 to the Entire Exhibit GRANTED: sealed/(154-6) Declaration of Robert confidential business 22 Estrin ISO Plaintiffs’ information Motion in Limine No. 2 23 Plaintiffs’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 158 24 158-3/(158-5) Excerpts of Plaintiffs’ Pages and lines: DENIED: no proffered Opposition to 2:5–9 good cause to seal 25 Defendants’ Motion in Limine No. 1 26 158-4/(158-6) Exhibits C–H to the Entire Exhibits DENIED as to Exhibit Declaration of Robert C: no proffered good 27 Estrin ISO Plaintiffs’ cause to seal Opposition to Docket Number Portions Sought Ruling 1 Public/(Sealed) to be Sealed Limine No. 1 Exhibits D-H: 2 confidential business information 3 Plaintiffs’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No, 159 4 159-3/(159-4) Excerpts of Plaintiffs’ Pages and lines: GRANTED: Opposition to 1:7-9; 3:5-10; confidential business Defendants’ Motion in 3:24-27; 4:12-13 | information 5 Limine No. 2 6 Defendants’ Admin. Motion to Seal, Dkt. No. 163 164/(163-5) Excerpts of Defendants’ | Pages and lines: DENIED: no supporting 7 Opposition to Plaintiffs’ | 1:17; 4:18-19 Rule 79-5(e)(1) Motion in Limine No. 1 declaration from g Plaintiffs 165/(163-7) Excerpts of Defendants’ | Pages and lines: GRANTED: 9 Opposition to Plaintiffs’ | 2:6—8; 2:25—3:9; confidential business Motion in Limine No. 2 3:11-3:16; 3:25— | information 4:9 10 166/(163-9) Excerpts of Defendants’ | Pages and lines: GRANTED: ll Opposition to Plaintiffs’ | 2:4—7; 2:10—11; confidential business Motion in Limine No. 3 2:12-14 information 12 Entire documents Exhibits A—D to the Entire Exhibits DENIED: no supporting sealed/(163-10; Declaration of Julia Rule 79-5(e)(1) 13 163-11; 163-12; Allen ISO Defendants’ declaration from 163-13) Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Plaintiffs 14 Motions in Limine Nos. 1 and 3 15 | I CONCLUSION

a 16 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dkt. Nos. 150, 158, and 163, and

17 GRANTS Dkt. Nos. 154 and 159. The Court DIRECTS the parties to file public versions of all Oo a 18 documents for which the proposed sealing has been denied within seven days of this order. 19 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative 20 || motions are granted will remain under seal. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: 9/23/2019 23 Aaspurer f Udy | | 24 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 25 26 27 28