1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CITY OF SAN MATEO, Case No. 23-cv-02504-AMO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE MOTION TO SEAL v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 20 10 ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. 11

12 Before the Court is Argonaut Insurance Company’s administrative motion to seal1 the 13 following documents: 14 Document Sought to be Sealed Portion of Document Sought 15 to be Sealed 16 Argonaut’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Page 15,2 line 22. Motion for Summary Judgment 17 Argonaut’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Page 20, n.5 Motion for Summary Judgment 18 Argonaut’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Page 20, line 21 - Page 21, line Motion for Summary Judgment 11 19 Declaration of Joan Olfers in Support of Paragraphs 4-7 20 Argonaut’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 21 Exhibit 1 to the Olfers Declaration (copies Entire Document of full transcripts of the state court 22 plaintiffs’ deposition testimony) 23 Exhibit 2 (copy of July 28, 2022 letter) Entire Document Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, the party seeking to file a document or portions of it 24 25

26 1 The motion did not conform to Civil Local Rule 79-5 or this Court’s Standing Order for Civil Cases. Future motions must comply with applicable rules. Going forward, the Court will 27 summarily strike any non-compliant filings. 1 under seal must explain “(i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the 2 injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is 3 not sufficient.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(1). The request must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the 4 sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 5 A party seeking to seal records must provide “compelling reasons” to overcome the 6 “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu,

, 7 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The standard derives from the “common law right ‘to inspect and copy 8 public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. 9 Creditors Ass’n,

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). To 10 overcome this strong presumption, the party seeking to seal judicial records must “articulate 11 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the general history of 12 access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 13 judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations omitted). The party must make a 14 “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is 15 disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

(9th Cir. 16 2002). It is in the “sound discretion of the trial court” to determine what constitutes a “compelling 17 reason” for sealing a court document. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc.,

(1978)). 19 Here, the City did not timely file a declaration in support of sealing as required by Civil 20 Local Rule 79-5(f)(3). The Court nonetheless granted the City leave to file a declaration in 21 support of sealing no later than January 18, 2024. ECF 50. The City did so. ECF 51. In that 22 declaration, the City takes no position on whether Exhibit 1 should be sealed, asserts that Exhibit 2 23 is subject to attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product protection, and asks that 24 Exhibit 2, with the portions of Argonaut’s opposition brief that refer to it, remain sealed. ECF 51 25 at 1-2. The declaration does not address any other portion of the opposition brief as to which 26 Argonaut seeks sealing. See

Nor does the declaration address the portions of the Olfers 27 declaration currently under seal. See

1 finds compelling reasons to seal the full deposition transcripts of the state court plaintiffs. 2 Argonaut provided the full transcripts, but it did not cite any specific material in its opposition 3 brief. Accordingly, the Court has not considered any of the transcripts in ruling on the underlying 4 motion for partial summary judgment. Moreover, the testimony is of a sensitive nature, and there 5 is no indication that either party to this action served plaintiffs in the underlying state court 6 litigation so that they may have an opportunity to offer a declaration in support of sealing. For 7 these reasons, the motion to seal is granted as to the transcripts. It is denied, however, as to the 8 one generic sentence in the opposition brief that cites to the full transcripts without disclosing the 9 underlying testimony. 10 As to the July 28, 2022 letter, and the portions of Argonaut’s opposition brief that mention 11 it, the Court finds compelling reasons to grant the motion to seal because the letter is subject to 12 attorney-client privilege. 13 As to paragraphs 4-7 of Olfers declaration, the City has provided no reason for that 14 material to remain under seal. The Court does not find compelling reasons to keep those 15 paragraphs sealed, as they provide descriptions of Exhibits 1 and 2 without revealing the substance 16 of the exhibits themselves. 17 For the convenience of the parties, the Court summarizes its rulings in the chart below: 18 Document Sought to be Portion of Document Sought to Ruling 19 Sealed be Sealed 20 Argonaut’s Opposition to Page 15, line 22. DENIED. Plaintiff’s Motion for 21 Summary Judgment Argonaut’s Opposition to Page 20, n.5 GRANTED. 22 Plaintiff’s Motion for The portion Summary Judgment sought to be 23 sealed describes 24 the content of an attorney-client 25 privileged communication. 26 Argonaut’s Opposition to Page 20, line 21 – Page 21, line GRANTED. 27 Plaintiff’s Motion for 11 The portion Document Sought to be Portion of Document Sought to Ruling 1 Sealed be Sealed 2 sealed summarizes or 3 quotes from the content of an 4 attorney-client privileged 5 communication. 6 Declaration of Joan Olfers Paragraphs 4-7 DENIED. in Support of Argonaut’s 7 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial 8 Summary Judgment Exhibit 1 to the Olfers Entire Document GRANTED. 9 Declaration (copies of full The testimony is 10 transcripts of the state of a sensitive court plaintiffs’ deposition nature, was not 11 testimony) specifically cited nor considered in 12 ruling on the 13 underlying motion for 14 partial summary judgment, and 15 the deponents were not served 16 with the motion 17 to seal. Exhibit 2 (copy of July 28, Entire Document GRANTED. 18 2022 letter) The document is attorney-client 19 privileged. 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 1 Documents filed under seal as to which the Court has granted Argonaut’s motion will 2 remain under seal. See Civil L.R. 79-5(g)(1). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(2), if the City 3 || wishes to file a supplemental declaration to seal any materials as to which the Court has denied 4 || Argonaut’s motion, it must do so by no later than February 1, 2024. If no supplemental 5 declaration is filed by that date, Argonaut shall file public versions of all documents as to which 6 sealing has been denied by no later than February 8, 2024. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 || Dated: January 25, 2024 :

10 ARACELI MARTINEZ-OLGUIN United States District Judge 11 a 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

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