1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 BIG BABOON, INC., Case No. 17-cv-02082-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE 9 v. UNDER SEAL

10 SAP AMERICA, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 112 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant SAP America’s administrative motion to file under 14 seal documents related to its motion to compel discovery in aid of judgment. Dkt. No. 112. The 15 Court GRANTS the motion for the reasons 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 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 7 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 8 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 9 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.”

Civil Local Rule 79-5 10 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 11 document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are 12 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The 13 request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 14 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 15 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 16 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 17 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 18 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 19

, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 20 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 21 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 Because Defendant’s motion to compel discovery is not a dispositive motion, the Court 24 applies the lower good cause standard. 25 The current sealing request seeks to seal information that contains confidential and 26 sensitive financial information relating to the operations and liabilities of Plaintiff, including 27 account numbers, balance sheets, and copies of checks. See Dkt. No. 112-4 at 8; Dkt. No. 112-5. 1 financial information), as required by Civil Local Rule 79-5. 2 The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants, and the case was terminated 3 on April 24, 2019. Dkt. No. 86; Dkt. No. 87. Further, the motion to compel discovery in aid of 4 || judgment was granted in part and denied in part on June 5, 2020 without reference to the 5 information sought to be sealed. Dkt. No. 120. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the 6 || public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in 7 disclosure of these documents is minimal given that the case and the motion have been resolved. 8 See In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK,

, at *2 (N.D. 9 || Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in accessing these documents is even further 10 || diminished in light of the fact that the Court will not have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion 11 for Class Certification.”). Accordingly, because the documents divulge confidential financial 12 || information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the 13 Court finds that there is good cause to file the documents under seal. See Economus vy. City & Cty. 14 || of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG,

, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) 3 15 (finding compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulged sensitive information no a 16 longer related to the case); In re iPhone,

(same); Doe v. City of San Diego, 3 17 || No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB,

, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s S 18 disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the matter are compelling reasons to seal the 19 exhibit). 20 || Il. CONCLUSION 21 The Court GRANTS Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal. Pursuant to 22 Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motion is 23 granted will remain under seal. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: 3/8/2021 Masperl 8 dlp HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 28 United States District Judge