1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ORIGIN MATERIALS OPERATING, Case No. 22-cv-09138-HSG

INC.,

8 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO Plaintiff, SEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 36 10

BLUETRITON BRANDS, INC.,

11 Defendant. 12

13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal. Dkt. No. 36. For the 14 reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 15

I. LEGAL STANDARD

16 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 17 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 18 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 19 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 20 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of 21 access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this 22 strong presumption, the party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion 23 must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 24 general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 25 understanding the judicial process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations 26 omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 27 disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 1 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 2 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. 3 Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records 4 may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 5 without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. 6 The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to 7 keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 8 certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 9 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5 10 supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a 11 document or portions of it under seal “must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents 12 under seal, minimize the number of documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible 13 sealing entire documents . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-5(a). The party must further explain the interests 14 that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if sealing is declined, and why a less restrictive 15 alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civil L.R. 79-5(c). 16 Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of 17 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only 18 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80 19 (quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm 20 will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 21 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of 22 harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman 23 Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted). 24 II. DISCUSSION 25 Plaintiff seeks to seal an unredacted Agreement related to Plaintiff’s business and third- 26 party partners. See Dkt. No. 36-3, Ex. 6. Because the Agreement is not associated with any 27 dispositive motion, the Court applies the lower good cause standard. The Agreement is between 1 “regularly find that litigants may file under seal contracts with third parties that contain proprietary 2 and confidential business information.” See Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF 3 (JISC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2015); see also In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 4 |} 3:17-CV-0108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (finding that 5 “license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business 6 || strategies” containing “confidential business information” satisfied the “compelling reasons” 7 standard in part because sealing that information “prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight 8 || into the parties’ business model and strategy”). Accordingly, because the document divulges 9 || commercially sensitive information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial 10 || proceedings in this case, the Court finds that there is good cause to file the documents under seal. 11 || 1. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS the administrative motion to file under seal. Dkt. No. 36. Pursuant 13 to Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(1), documents filed under seal as to which the administrative motion 14 || is granted will remain under seal. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. a 16 || Dated: 8/8/2024 Aine 5. Sbl..

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

4 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28