SHERI BATE and her child N.M., individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, et al. v. SECURLY, INC.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 18, 2026
• Docket: 3:23-cv-01304
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHERI BATE and her child N.M., Case No.: 23cv1304-AGS (DEB) individually and on behalf of others 12 similarly situated, et al. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 13 UNOPPOSED MOTION TO SEAL Plaintiffs, DOCUMENTS FILED IN SUPPORT OF 14 v. THEIR UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR 15 APPROVAL OF COMPROMISE SECURLY, INC., [ECF NO. 123] 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 On May 12, 2026, Plaintiffs N.M. and A.S., minors, by and through their respective 20 parents, Sheri Bate and Azucena Mejia (“Plaintiffs”), filed a Motion to Seal the following: 21 (1) certain portions of Plaintiffs’ concurrently filed Unopposed Motion for Approval of 22 Compromise [ECF No. 125] that disclose (a) the identities of the minor plaintiffs, (b) the 23 settlement amount, or (c) other language which may reveal the settlement amount and 24 (2) the entirety of the parties’ settlement agreement [ECF No. 125-2]. (See ECF No. 123 25 (“Motion to Seal”).) 26 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 27 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 2 of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 3 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 4 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 5 articulating “compelling reasons” that are “sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 6 disclosure.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. In the context of non-dispositive motions, 7 the party requesting to seal a judicial record must make a particularized showing of 8 good cause. Id. at 1180. 9 Here, Plaintiffs explain “there are compelling reasons to seal each of the above- 10 mentioned materials because they contain sensitive information about the minors 11 involved in the case, including private personal identifying information for minor 12 children . . ., as well as confidential information related to the settlement agreement 13 that should be protected from public disclosure.” (ECF No. 123 at 5.) According to 14 Plaintiffs, no less restrictive alternative would adequately protect the privacy interests 15 at stake. (Id.) 16 Having reviewed the Motion to Seal and the relevant documents, the Court finds 17 there are compelling reasons that overcome the presumption of public access. 18 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion to Seal and ORDERS the following 19 documents to be filed UNDER SEAL: 20 1. The unredacted version of Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Approval of 21 Compromise. 22 2. The entirety of the parties’ settlement agreement. 23 3. The Court’s forthcoming unredacted Report and Recommendation.1 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25

26 27 1 The Court will also file a redacted Report and Recommendation that omits references to “(1) the 1 || Dated: May 18, 2026 -

3 Honorable Michael S. Berg United States Magistrate Judge 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28