MiCamp Solutions, LLC v. Visa Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICAMP SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 23-cv-06351-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 9 v. SEAL

10 VISA INC., Re: Dkt. No. 18 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Visa’s administrative motion to seal. Dkt No. 18. 14 For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 15 I. LEGAL STANDARD 16 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 17 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 18 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 19 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 20 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 21 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 22 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 23 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 24 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 25 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 26 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 27 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 1 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 2 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 3 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 4 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 5 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 6 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 7 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 8 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 9 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 10 document or portions of it under seal “must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 11 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 12 sealing entire documents . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The party must further explain the interests 13 that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is declined, and why a less restrictive 14 alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 15 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 16 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 17 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 18 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 19 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 20 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 21 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 22 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 23 II. DISCUSSION 24 Defendant Visa moves to seal Exhibit 6 to the Declaration of Sharon D. Mayo (Dkt. No. 25 16-6), which was submitted in support of its motion to dismiss. Dkt. No. 18. Because Exhibit 6 is 26 attached to a dispositive motion, the justification for sealing must meet the “compelling reasons” 27 standard. According to Defendant, Exhibit 6 consists of “a package of documents submitted to 1 of Non-Compliant Surcharging” containing “highly confidential, sensitive business information of 2 || Visa,” the disclosure of which “would reveal Visa’s internal deliberative processes for considering 3 || rules violations and appeals therefrom.” Dkt. No. 18 at 2. 4 While the documents do seem like appropriate candidates for sealing given that they could 5 cause competitive harm to Defendant if disclosed, the Court finds it most significant that the 6 || motion to dismiss with which the exhibit was associated was terminated as moot before the Court 7 ever ruled on the motion, meaning that the Court never substantively considered the exhibit 8 || Defendant now seeks to seal. Where the court does not consider materials that a party has 9 || requested to seal, the public’s interest their disclosure is minimal since they do not aid the public’s 10 || understanding of judicial proceedings. See In re iPhone Application Litig., No. 11-MD-02250- 11 LHK, 2013 WL 12335013, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2013) (“The public’s interest in accessing 12 || these documents is even further diminished in light of the fact that the Court will not have 5 13 occasion to rule on [the relevant motion].”); see also Economus v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 14 No. 18-CV-01071-HSG, 2019 WL 1483804, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2019) (finding compelling 3 15 reason to seal because the sealing request divulges sensitive information no longer related to the 16 || case); Doe v. City of San Diego, No. 12- CV-689-MMA-DHB, 2014 WL 1921742, at *4 (S.D. 3 17 Cal. May 14, 2014) (exhibit’s disclosure of personal information and irrelevance to the matter are 18 || compelling reasons to seal the exhibit). Such is the case here. 19 In light of the sensitive nature of the documents and the minimal public interest in them, 20 || the Court accordingly GRANTS Defendant’s request to seal Exhibit 6 to the Mayo Declaration. 21 Dkt. No. 18. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: 5/30/2024 24 Alspurel 5 |p. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28