Chung v. Intellectsoft Group Corporation ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HOPE CHUNG, et al., Case No. 21-cv-03074-JST 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL 10 INTELLECTSOFT GROUP CORPORATION, et al., Re: ECF No. 177, 181 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court are Defendants’ administrative motions to seal the Declaration of David 14 S. Howell in support of its motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 177) and Exhibit 1 to the 15 declaration of Artem Kozel in support of its motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 181). The 16 Court will grant the motions. 17 A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local 18 Rule 79-5 and (2) rebut the “strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to most judicial 19 records. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). For 20 judicial records attached to dispositive motions, the party seeking to seal the record must 21 demonstrate “compelling reasons” that would overcome the public’s right to view public records 22 and documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115-16 (9th Cir. 2009), opinion 23 amended and superseded on denial of reh’g, 605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Kamakana, 447 24 F.3d at 1178). A “party seeking to seal judicial records must show that ‘compelling reasons 25 supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the public 26 policies favoring disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79). Civil Local Rule 79- 27 5 requires that an administrative motion to seal include a statement explaining “(i) the legitimate 1 and (iii) why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient,” evidentiary support where 2 || necessary, and a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material.” See 3 || L.R. 79-5(c)(1)-(3). 4 Having reviewed Defendants’ motions, the Court finds that compelling reasons exist to 5 seal the Howell declaration and Exhibit 1 to the Kozel declaration. The Court previously granted 6 || an administrative motion to seal the information discussed in the Howell declaration. See ECF 7 No. 172. Exhibit 1 of the Kozel declaration contains confidential and sensitive business 8 || information that warrants sealing. Accordingly, Defendants’ administrative motions to seal as to 9 || the Howell declaration and Exhibit 1 to the Kozel declaration are hereby GRANTED. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: December 8, 2023 JON S. TIGAR' 13 nited States District Judge 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28