Youlin Wang v. Forensic Professional Group USA, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 YOULIN WANG, Case No. 20-cv-08033-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING SEALING 9 v. MOTION

10 RICHARD KAHN, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Before the Court is Plaintiff Youlin Wang’s administrative motion to file under seal an 14 exhibit to Defendant’s reply to the motion to compel arbitration. See ECF Nos. 140, 1411 15 (“Motion”). Defendant does not oppose the motion. The Court has considered the motion and 16 supporting declarations. For the following reasons, the motion to seal is GRANTED. 17 I. LEGAL STANDARD 18 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 19 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 20 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 21 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 22 “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of 23 “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 24 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed 25 upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. 26 // 27 1 In addition, in this district, all parties requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local 2 Rule 79-5. That rule requires, inter alia, the moving party to provide “the reasons for keeping a 3 document under seal, including an explanation of: (i) the legitimate private or public interests that 4 warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less restrictive 5 alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1). Further, Civil Local Rule 79-5 6 requires the moving party to provide “evidentiary support from declarations where necessary.” 7 Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(2). And the proposed order must be “narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable 8 material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3). 9 II. DISCUSSION 10 Because a motion to compel arbitration is only tangentially related to the merits of the 11 case, Plaintiff must show good cause to seal the document. See In re Lithium Ion Batteries 12 Antitrust Litig., No. 15-CV-02987-YGR, 2016 WL 5791356, at *1 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2016) 13 (applying “good cause” standard to motion to seal associated with motion to compel arbitration). 14 The material that Plaintiff seeks to seal is two pages from his amended 2017 personal tax 15 returns. See Motion at 1. On October 7, 2022, these documents were filed by Defendant as an 16 exhibit to his reply to the motion to compel arbitration. See ECF No. 124. Defendant did not file 17 the exhibit under seal although the documents were subject to a protective order. ECF No. 141-2 18 ¶¶ 2-6. Plaintiff’s attorney realized that the tax returns had been publicly filed a few days later and 19 notified Defendant. Id. ¶ 7. The parties stipulated to remove the documents from public record on 20 October 11, 2022, ECF No. 131, and the Court granted the stipulation that same day, ECF No. 21 134. “[I]nformation such as IRS filings and tax returns of particular individuals” can be sealed 22 even under the higher compelling reasons standard. Hall v. Cultural Care USA, No. 3:21-cv- 23 00926-WHO, 2022 WL 2905353, at *10 (N.D. Cal. July 22, 2022). The Court therefore finds the 24 information is properly sealed. 25 // 26 // 27 // I. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs motion to seal is 2 GRANTED. 3 4 Dated: October 25, 2022 5 M. 6 BETHLABSONFREEMAN 5 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28