Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc.

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION NICKY LAATZ, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04844-BLF 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER PARTY'S MATERIAL 10 ZAZZLE, INC., et al., SHOULD BE SEALED 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 362] 12 Before the Court is Plaintiff Nicky Laatz’s (“Plaintiff”) Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. ECF 362. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the motion.

15 I. LEGAL STANDARD 16 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097.

24 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” Civ. L.R. 79- 5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).

4 Further, when a party seeks to seal a document because it has been designated as confidential by another party, the filing party must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Another Party’s Material Should be Sealed. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f). In that case, the filing party need not satisfy the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(1). Instead, the party who designated the material as confidential must, within seven days of the motion’s filing, file a statement and/or declaration that meets the requirements of subsection (c)(1). Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3). A designating party’s failure to file a statement or declaration may result in the unsealing of the provisionally sealed document without further notice to the designating party. Id. Any party can file a response to that declaration within four days. Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(4).

13 II. DISCUSSION 14 On February 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to consider whether another party’s materials should be sealed (“Motion”) in connection with her slides (“Slides”) presented at the hearing on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 362. Plaintiff identified portions of her Slides as containing information designated by Defendants, as “confidential or highly confidential” pursuant to a protective order in at ECF 153. ECF 362 at 2. The 10-day deadline to file a statement or declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) ran on March 9, 2025. As of the date of the entry of this order, no party has filed a statement or declaration under Civil Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) regarding the materials Plaintiff provisionally filed under seal in connection with her Slides. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion.

23 III. ORDER 24 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS redactions as outlined in the below chart. The Court directs Plaintiff to file a revised redacted version of the Slides that comports with the Court’s order into the public record within 7 days from issuance of this order. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(f)(3).

27 // ECF Document Portion(s) Requested 1 to Seal 2 ECF 362-2 Slides used at the hearing | Highlighted portions | DENIED because no for Defendants’ motion for | in slides 54, 55, 68, statement or 3 summary judgment 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, declaration under Civil 106, 133, 135. Local Rule 79-5(f)(3) 4 has been filed.

6 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: Dated: March 13, 2025 ?

4ETH LABSON FREEMAN 10 United States District Judge a 12 © = 17