Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SPLUNK INC., Plaintiff, No. C 22-07611 WHA
v.
ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL
CRIBL, INC., Defendant.
15 This order addresses all pending motions to seal and supporting declarations (Dkt. Nos. 190, 191, 201–04, 208, 209, 224, 230, 237, 238, 241, 242, 251, 261, 272, 280, 298, 302, 340). 1. THE LEGAL STANDARD. There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not). See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 580 U.S. 815 (2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good…