M.G. v. Bodum USA, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 M. G., 7 Case No. 19-cv-01069-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE 9 UNDER SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE BODUM USA, INC., 10 Re: Dkt. No. 87 Defendant. 11

12 13 Defendant Bodum has filed an administrative motion (“Motion”) under Civil Local Rule 14 79-5 in which is seeks leave to file under seal Plaintiff’s Motion to Approve Settlement and the 15 supporting declaration, including exhibits. In the Motion, which is unopposed, Bodum contends 16 there is good cause to place these documents under seal. Recent Ninth Circuit case law, however, 17 supports the conclusion that Bodum’s request is governed by the “compelling reasons” standard. 18 See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Consistent 19 with our precedent, we make clear that public access to filed motions and their attachments does 20 not merely depend on whether the motion is technically ‘dispositive.’ Rather, public access will 21 turn on whether the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.”); Gagliolo v. 22 Kaweah Manor, Inc., No. 120CV01719NONESAB, 2021 WL 1549687, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 23 2021) (“It appears that since the decision in Auto Safety, courts in the Ninth Circuit are more 24 inclined to apply the compelling reasons standard to motions related to settlements.”) (listing 25 cases). 26 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion without prejudice to refiling. In its renewed 27 motion, Bodum shall address whether the documents it seeks to file under seal satisfy the 1 entirety. In addition, Bodum may present arguments as to why the compelling reasons standard 2 || does not apply. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: May 5, 2021 5 J PH C. SPERO 6 ief Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12

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