Chung v. Intellectsoft Group Corporation

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HOPE CHUNG, et al., Case No. 21-cv-03074-JST 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL 10 INTELLECTSOFT GROUP CORPORATION, et al., Re: ECF No. 177, 181 Defendants.

13 Before the Court are Defendants’ administrative motions to seal the Declaration of David S. Howell in support of its motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 177) and Exhibit 1 to the declaration of Artem Kozel in support of its motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 181). The Court will grant the motions.

17 A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and (2) rebut the “strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to most judicial records. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). For judicial records attached to dispositive motions, the party seeking to seal the record must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that would overcome the public’s right to view public records and documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2009), opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh’g, 605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). A “party seeking to seal judicial records must show that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79). Civil Local Rule 79- 5 requires that an administrative motion to seal include a statement explaining “(i) the legitimate and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient,” evidentiary support where || necessary, and a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” See || L.R. 79-5(c)(1)-(3).

4 Having reviewed Defendants’ motions, the Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal the Howell declaration and Exhibit 1 to the Kozel declaration. The Court previously granted || an administrative motion to seal the information discussed in the Howell declaration. See ECF No. 172. Exhibit 1 of the Kozel declaration contains confidential and sensitive business || information that warrants sealing. Accordingly, Defendants’ administrative motions to seal as to || the Howell declaration and Exhibit 1 to the Kozel declaration are hereby GRANTED.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: December 8, 2023 JON S. TIGAR' 13 nited States District Judge

= 17 Z 18