Morilha v. Alphabet Inc.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 8, 2024
• Docket: 4:24-cv-02793
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DANIEL VITOR MORILHA, Case No. 24-cv-02793-JST

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S ADMINSTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 10 ALPHABET INC., et al., Re: ECF No. 35 Defendants. 11

12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal an affidavit and 14 accompanying exhibits in support of his civil complaint. ECF No. 35. The Court will grant the 15 motion in part and deny it in part. 16 A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local 17 Rule 79-5 and (2) rebut the “strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to most judicial 18 records. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Local 19 Rule 79-5 requires that the request include “a specific statement of the applicable legal standard 20 and the reasons for keeping a document under seal,” and that it be “narrowly tailored to seal only 21 the sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(c). For judicial records attached to dipositive motions, the 22 party seeking to seal the record must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that would overcome the 23 public’s right to view public records and documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 564 F.3d 24 1106, 1115–16 (9th Cir. 2009), opinion amended and superseded on denial of reh’g, 605 F.3d 665 25 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). A “party seeking to seal judicial records 26 must show that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings … outweigh the general 27 history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d 1 Plaintiff's motion to seal does not meet these requirements. He “requests this Court [] 2 || consider whether [his] affidavit and exhibits in support of his civil complaint should be filed with 3 || the portions which might contain Defendant’s legitimate trade secrets redacted.” ECF No. 35. 4 || But none of the exhibits or statements in his affidavit contain any trade secret information. One 5 exhibit, however, is a medical record, ECF NO. 35-4 at 11, for which sealing is warranted. See 6 || Pratt v. Gamboa, No. 17-cv-04375-LHK, 2020 WL 8992141, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2020) 7 (“Courts routinely conclude that the need to protect medical privacy qualifies as a compelling 8 || reason for sealing records.”). 9 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiff’s motion to seal the exhibit found at ECF No. 35-3 10 at 16 and ECF No. 35-4 at 11, and that document will remain under seal. The Court denies 11 Plaintiff's motion as to the remaining exhibits and affidavit. The Court will not consider the 12 || redacted portions of the affidavit and remaining exhibits unless Plaintiff files the documents on the 13 public record within seven days from the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 Dated: August 8, 2024 . .

A 16 JON S. TIGAR 2 17 nited States District Judge

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28