1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THUY BICH TRAN, et al., Case No. 22-cv-02983-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PARTIES’ STIPULATED MOTION TO FILE 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS UNDER SEAL 10 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 23 11 Defendants.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal. Dkt. No. 23. For the 14 reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 15 I. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 17 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 18 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 19 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 20 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 21 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 22 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 23 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 24 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 25 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 26 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 27 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 1 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 2 Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

(1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 3 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 4 without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

5 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 6 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 7 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 8 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.”

Civil Local Rule 79-5 9 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 10 document or portions of it under seal “must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 11 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 12 sealing entire documents . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The party must further explain the interests 13 that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is declined, and why a less restrictive 14 alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 15 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 16 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 17 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 18 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 19 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 20

, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 21 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 22 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 23 II. DISCUSSION 24 Defendant’s filings of administrative records are more than tangentially related to the 25 underlying cause of action, so the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard. 26 The current sealing request, to which both parties have jointly stipulated, seeks to seal the 27 U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services administrative records for three individuals - Thanh Huu 1 sensitive records include “banking statements, credit card bills, insurance papers, tax filings, and 2 || immigration filings[,]” and so contain “social security numbers, dates of birth, checking account 3 information, credit card numbers, and other sensitive personal financial data.” Dkt. No. 23 at 3. 4 The Court did not rely on any of the documents that are the subject of Defendant’s 5 administrative motion to seal, given that the parties stipulated to dismissal before the Court. See 6 || Dkt. No. 27. Thus, these documents are unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial 7 || proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in disclosure of these documents is minimal 8 given that the Court did not have occasion to rule on any motions related to them before the 9 || parties stipulated to dismissal. See In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250-LHK, 2013 10 || WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in accessing these 11 documents is even further diminished in light of the fact that the Court will not have occasion to 12 || rule on [the relevant motion].”). Accordingly, because the documents divulge confidential 5 13 || personal and financial information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial 14 || proceedings in this action, the Court finds that there is compelling reason to file the documents 3 15 under seal. See Economus v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, No. 18-CV-01071-HSG,

1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) (finding compelling reason to seal because the sealing 3 17 request divulges sensitive information no longer related to the case); In re iPhone,

12335013 (same); Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12-CV-689-MMA-DHB,

, at 19 *4 (S.D. Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the 20 || matter are compelling reasons to seal the exhibit). 21 || I. CONCLUSION 22 The Court GRANTS Defendant’s administrative motion to file under seal. Pursuant to 23 Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motion is 24 || granted will remain under seal. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: 9/25/2023 27 Abepured 5 Mi HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 28 United States District Judge