Oh v. Sunvalleytek International, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAVID OH, Case No. 22-cv-00866-SVK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE 9 v. MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 SUNVALLEYTEK INTERNATIONAL, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 40, 42 11 Defendant. 12 13 Now before the Court are administrative motions for leave to file under seal portions of 14 documents filed in connection with Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction and motion for 15 class certification. Dkt. 40, 42; see also Dkt. 55 (statement of Sunvalleytek in support of sealing). 16 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 17 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 18 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 19 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 20 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to 21 court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party 22 seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the 23 underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For 24 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to 25 motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower 26 “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party 27 1 Rule 79-5. 2 Here, the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard because the information the 3 parties seek to seal was submitted to the Court in connection with motions that are “more than 4 || tangentially related” to the merits of the case. The Court may reach different conclusions 5 regarding sealing these documents under different standards or in a different context. Having 6 || considered the motions to seal, supporting declarations, and the pleadings on file, and good cause 7 appearing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 8 9 7 ere Court’s Ruling ocument Sought to be on Motion to Reason(s) for Court’s Ruling 10 Sealed Seal Exhibit 10 to Plaintiff’s Motion for — [Entire Document Defendant’s corporate tax return 11 Class Certification containing sensitive financial b information, disclosure of which Id cause commercial harm to cou & 13 Defendant and in which there is no identified countervailing public 14 interest in disclosure Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Redacted portions at [Narrowly tailored to protect |) Injunction 2:20-22; 5:20-24; sensitive financial information, a 16 6:13-16; 7:21-22 disclosure of which could cause = commercial harm to Defendant and 3 17 in which there is no identified countervailing public interest in Z 18 disclosure Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Entire document Defendant’s corporate balance sheets 19 Preliminary Injunction containing sensitive financial 0 information, disclosure of which could cause commercial harm to 21 Defendant and in which there is no identified countervailing public 22 interest in disclosure 23 SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: October 3, 2023 25 26 Suse vat SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 28