1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ASHTON WOODS HOLDINGS L.L.C., et Case No. 15-cv-01247-HSG al., 8 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs, ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO 9 SEAL v. 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 81, 90, 96, 116, 118 USG CORPORATION, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court are five motions to seal filed by Plaintiffs and proposed 14 intervenors related to Plaintiffs’ motion for live-streamed trial testimony, motions to intervene for 15 the limited purpose of opposing the request for live-streamed testimony, and Plaintiffs’ 16 oppositions to the motions to intervene. See Dkt. Nos. 81, 90, 96, 116, 118. For the reasons 17 detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motions. 18 I. LEGAL STANDARD 19 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 20 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 21 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 22 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 23 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 24 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 25 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 26 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 27 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 1 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 2 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 3 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 4 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 5 Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

(1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 6 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 7 without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

8 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 9 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 10 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 11 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.”

Civil Local Rule 79-5 12 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 13 document or portions of it under seal must “establish[] that the document, or portions thereof, are 14 privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . The 15 request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). 16 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 17 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 18 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 19 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 20 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 21

, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 22 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 23 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 Because the motions to seal relate to Plaintiffs’ motion for live-streamed trial testimony 26 and motions to intervene for the limited purpose of opposing that non-dispositive request, the 27 court will apply the “good cause” standard. 1 The current motions seek to seal documents and portions of documents that contain 2 confidential business information produced pursuant to a protective order entered in the multi- 3 district litigation captioned In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., Case No. 2:13-md-02437- 4 MMB (E.D. Pa.), private health information of a non-party, and details of confidential settlement 5 agreements. See Dkt. Nos. 81, 90, 96, 116, 118. 6 The Court did not rely on any of the documents that are the subject of the motions to seal, 7 given that the parties filed a notice of settlement and joint stipulation of dismissal, terminating the 8 case, before the Court ruled on the non-dispositive motions that prompted the filings. See Dkt. 9 Nos. 133, 136, 139. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public’s understanding of the 10 judicial proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is 11 minimal given that the Court will not rule on the underlying motions. See In re iPhone 12 Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) 13 (“The public’s interest in accessing these documents is even further diminished in light of the fact 14 that the Court will not have occasion to rule on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.”). 15 Accordingly, because the documents divulge confidential business, health, and settlement 16 information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this action, the 17 Court finds that there is good cause to file the documents under seal. See Economus v. City & Cty. 18 of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG,

, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) 19 (finding compelling reason to seal because the sealing request divulges sensitive information no 20 longer related to the case); In re iPhone,

(same); Doe v. City of San Diego, 21 No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB,

, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s 22 disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the matter are compelling reasons to seal the 23 exhibit). 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // Il CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS the administrative motions to file under seal. Pursuant to Civil Local 2 Rule 79-5(f)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motions are granted 3 will remain under seal. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: 3/29/2022

7 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

14

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28