1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PACIFIC STRUCTURES, INC, Case No. 21-cv-04438-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 47 10 GREENWICH INSURANCE COMPANY, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to consider whether another 14 party’s material should be sealed. Dkt. No. 47. Non-party Sedgwick Claims Management 15 Services, Inc. submitted a response and two declarations in support of sealing portions of the First 16 Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 50. The Court DENIES the motion for the reasons below. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 19 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 20 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 21 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 22 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 23 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 24 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 25 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 26 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 27 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 1 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 2 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 3 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 4 Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

(1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 5 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 6 without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

7 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 8 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 9 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”

at 1179–80 (quotations omitted). This 10 requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information 11 is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

, 1210–11 (9th 12 Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 13 examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966

(9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 15 II. DISCUSSION 16 Because the complaint is the pleading on which this case is based, the Court applies the 17 “compelling reasons” standard. See, e.g., Space Data Corp. v. Alphabet Inc., No. 16-CV-03260- 18 BLF,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2018) (finding compelling reasons standard 19 governed motion to seal portions of the complaint); In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., No. C 20 06-06110 SBA,

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008) (“While a complaint is not, 21 per se, the actual pleading by which a suit may be disposed of, it is the root, the foundation, the 22 basis by which a suit arises and must be disposed of.”). The portions of the complaint at issue 23 here are paragraphs 28(e) through 28(l), as Sedgwick concedes that paragraphs 28(a) through 24 28(d) may be filed publicly. See Dkt. No. 50 at 2. 25 The Court finds the proposed redaction of eight full paragraphs of the complaint 26 overbroad. Requests to file under seal must be “narrowly tailored” such that only sealable 27 information is sought to be shielded from public access. Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). Sedgwick’s 1 reveal the number of claims assigned to claims examiners. This suggests that, at most, the specific 2 || figures themselves might be sealable. But Sedgwick provides no compelling reason to seal the 3 entirety of the email excerpts. While Sedgwick argues these excerpts were included to tarnish its 4 reputation, the Ninth Circuit has made clear that “[t]he mere fact that the production of records 5 || may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 6 || without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also 7 || Sjostrom v. Kraatz, No. 16-CV-01381-DMR,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2016) 8 (refusing to seal where litigant argued the complaint would harm the defendant’s reputation and 9 business). 10 Further, the excerpts relate directly to Plaintiff’s allegations that Defendant breached its 11 contractual duties by, among other things, failing to timely investigate and respond to Plaintiff’s 12 || insurance claim. Thus, the “interest in ensuring the public’s understanding of the judicial 13 process,” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quotation omitted), is not served if these portions are 14 || redacted in their entirety as proposed. 2 15 || IM. CONCLUSION 16 The Court DENIES Plaintiff's administrative motion to seal. Per Civil Local Rule 3 17 79-5(g)(2), if Sedgwick wishes to file a renewed motion to seal, it must do so within seven days S 18 from the date of this order. To be clear, the Court rejects the proposed redaction of the entire 19 || paragraphs identified, and finds that Sedgwick cannot meet the compelling reasons standard as to 20 || those paragraphs. Sedgwick thus may not again seek the redaction of these paragraphs in their 21 entirety. For any particular narrower fact sought to be sealed, Sedgwick must present a 22 || particularized compelling reason. If no motion is filed, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file public 23 versions of all documents for which proposed sealing has been denied within ten days. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: 9/26/2022 26 Abspurd 3 Mbt) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 27 United States District Judge 28