Bernstein v. Banco Popular North America

Opinion

JOHN L. BERNSTEIN, et al., Case No. 25-cv-02204-BLF

Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL et al., [Re: ECF No. 65] Defendants. Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed in connection with their motion to extend deadlines. ECF 65. Defendants did not submit any response to Plaintiff’s motions. Having reviewed Plaintiffs’ submissions and applicable sealing law, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests to seal. “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. 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 restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 requires the 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). 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). Because the motion to seal pertains to a motion for relief from a pretrial schedule, the Court will apply the “good cause” standard. See Malig as Tr. for Malig Fam. Tr. v. Lyft, Inc., No. 19-CV- 02690, 2022 WL 1143360, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2022). The material under consideration for sealing concerns health information that Plaintiffs have deemed confidential. See ECF 65. The Court finds that Plaintiffs have established compelling reasons to seal information that would reveal confidential information about their health. See California Spine & Neurosurgery Inst. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., No. 19-CV-02417-LHK, 2021 WL 1146216, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021) (finding compelling reasons to seal personal health information of patients). Additionally, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ sealing requests to be narrowly tailored so that there is no less restrictive alternative to redacting the information at issue. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s requests to file under seal the exhibits at ECF 65. // I. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS the exhibits filed at ECF 65 to remain under 2 seal. 3 4 Dated: June 6, 2025 6 ETH LABSON FREEMAN 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

© 15 16

it

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