Lesnik v.Eisenmann SE

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA GREGOR LESNIK, et al., Case No. 16-cv-01120-LHK (SVK) 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 EISENMANN SE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 526 11 Defendants.

12 Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal (Dkt. 526) seeking to seal certain materials submitted to the Court in connection with the Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant Eisenmann Corporation’s Motion to Retain Confidentiality Designations (Dkt. 525). Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local 1 Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information the parties seek to seal was submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery-related motion, rather than a motion that concerns the merits of the case. The Court may reach different conclusions regarding the sealing these documents under different standards or in a different context. Having considered the motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 8 Court’s Ruling Document Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling 9 Sealed Seal Ex. G to Supplemental Declaration of GRANTED as to Good cause exists to seal the William C. Dresser in Opposition to the redacted redacted portions of this document Defendant Eisenmann Corporation’s portions of Ex. G because they are narrowly tailored to Motion to Retain Confidentiality in Dkt. 525-1 protect information concerning the Designations (Dkt. 525-1) (“Supp. parties’ confidential settlement Dresser Decl.”) agreement Ex. H to the Supp. Dresser Decl. GRANTED as to Good cause exists to seal the the redacted redacted portions of this document 14 portions of Ex. H because they are narrowly tailored to 15 in Dkt. 525-1 protect information concerning the parties’ confidential settlement 16 agreement Ex. J-2 to the Supp. Dresser Decl. GRANTED as to Good cause exists to seal the 17 the redacted redacted portions of this document portions of Ex. because they are narrowly tailored to J-2 in Dkt. 525-1 protect information concerning the parties’ confidential settlement agreement Ex. L to the Supp. Dresser Decl. DENIED as to Ex. L to the Supp. Dresser Decl.

Ex. L to the (Dkt. 525-1) does not contain 21 Supp. Dresser redactions and was not filed under 22 Decl. (Dkt. 525- seal; therefore, the Court denies the 1); GRANTED motion to seal to the extent it seeks 23 as to Ex. L to the to seal that document. Ex. L to the Declaration of Dresser Sealing Decl. (Dkt. 527) is a 24 William C. different document that may remain Dresser in under seal because it is an email that 25 Support of the contains only (1) an introductory 26 Motion for Leave message that the Court did not to File under Seal consider in in ruling on the Motion 27 (Dkt. 527) to Retain Confidentiality (“Dresser Sealing Designations and (2) a copy of the 1 the Supp. Dresser Decl. that is sealed for the reasons stated below.

2 || IEx. M to the Supp. Dresser Decl. GRANTED asto |Good cause exists to seal certain of 3 the redacted the redacted portions of this portions of Ex.M_ document because they are narrowly 4 in Dkt. 525-1 tailored to protect information concerning the parties’ confidential 5 settlement agreement. The emaining redacted portions list 6 names of people identified as 7 employees of Vuzen whose identities remain confidential under 8 he parties’ Protective Order.

9 SO ORDERED.

10 Dated: February 8, 2021 11 S ! a 12 vi SUSAN VAN KEULEN 13 United States Magistrate Judge

(«17 Z 18