Patel v. Alphabet Inc.

Opinion

1 2 6 7 RAJ PATEL, Case No. 23-cv-03647-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE 9 v. UNDER SEAL

10 ALPHABET INC., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 On August 8, 2023, this Court dismissed Plaintiff Raj Patel’s Second Amended Complaint 14 with leave to amend and directed Plaintiff to file his Third Amended Complaint within 30 days of 15 that order. On August 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a motion to file under seal his Third Amended 16 Complaint, ECF No. 21-3, and to seal his original complaint, ECF No. 1, First Amended 17 Complaint, ECF No. 13, Motion to Reconsider, ECF No. 15, and his Second Amended Complaint, 18 ECF No. 18. 19 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 20 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 21 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 22 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 23 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 24 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 25 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 26 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 27 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 1 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 2 || warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 3 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 4 || requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 5 || Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 6 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 7 Because a complaint is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the Court 8 || will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. See Rieckborn v. Velti PLC, No. 13-CV-03889- 9 || WHO, 2014 WL 4964313, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2014) (collecting cases applying the 10 || compelling reasons standard to motions to seal a complaint). 11 Plaintiff requests that the Court seal all four versions of his complaint and his motion to 12 || reconsider in their entirety. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate compelling reasons to seal all or 5 13 any part of the pleadings. Thus, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's motion to 14 || file under seal, ECF No. 21. Plaintiff may file a narrowly tailored request to seal portions of the 3 15 complaints supported by an affidavit demonstrating compelling reasons to seal. This renewed 16 || request to seal shall be filed by September 6, 2023. Failure to renew the request to seal will result 3 17 in the entire document being filed on the public docket. 18 20 21 Dated: August 28, 2023

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28