Demetrius Smith, et al. v. Rack Room Shoes, Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: January 6, 2026
• Docket: 3:24-cv-06709
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DEMETRIUS SMITH, et al., Case No. 24-cv-06709-RFL (SK)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RESERVING RULING ON 9 v. MOTION TO SEAL

10 RACK ROOM SHOES, INC., Regarding Docket No. 139 11 Defendant.

12 On December 8, 2025, in connection with their discovery letter brief, Defendant filed a 13 motion to seal documents designated as confidential by Plaintiffs. (Dkt. No. 139.) Pursuant to 14 Northern District Civil Local Rule 97-5(f)(3), Plaintiffs were obligated to file a statement or 15 declaration demonstrating why the materials should be filed under seal within seven days. 16 Plaintiffs failed to do so. 17 Historically, courts have recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and 18 documents, including judicial records.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 and 19 n. 7 (1978). Thus. “[u]nless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong 20 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 21 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 22 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). To overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a 23 judicial record must articulate “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 24 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79 25 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 26 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ . . . exist when such ‘court files might have become a 27 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 1 at 598). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, 2 incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its 3 records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). 4 The Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception to the presumption of access to judicial 5 records . . . [that is] expressly limited to judicial records filed under seal when attached to a non- 6 dispositive motion.” In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litigation, 686 F.3d 7 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (emphasis in original). 8 Where the exception applies, the party seeking to seal need only demonstrate that there is “good 9 cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to seal. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 10 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (applying a “good cause” standard to non-dispositive motions 11 because such motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of 12 action”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has 13 broad discretion to permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection of “a trade 14 secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 26(c)(1)(G). However, even under the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c), a party must make a 16 “particularized showing” with respect to any individual document in order to justify sealing the 17 relevant document. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by 18 specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., 19 Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation 20 omitted). 21 Because Plaintiffs failed to file the required statement or declaration, they necessarily 22 failed to demonstrate that sealing their responses to Interrogatory Number 16 is warranted. In 23 order to provide Plaintiff with one further opportunity to make the required showing, the Court 24 HEREBY RESERVES RULING on Defendant’s motion to seal. By no later than January 13, 25 2026, Plaintiffs shall file their required statement or declaration identifying the specific portion of 26 their responses to Interrogatory Number 16 that they claim is confidential and demonstrate why 27 / / / 1 this portion should be filed under seal. If Plaintiffs fail to file their statement or declaration by 2 January 13, 2026, the Court will deny the motion to seal in full. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: January 6, 2026 □ 5 Attia (ow SALLIE KIM 6 United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

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