1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DECKERS OUTDOOR CORPORATION, Case No. 23-cv-04850-AMO (LJC)

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING

9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

CONSIDER WHETHER DOCUMENT

10 LAST BRAND, INC., SHOULD BE SEALED 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 94

12 13 Plaintiff Deckers Outdoor Corporation (Deckers) filed an administrative motion to 14 consider whether a document submitted in connection with a discovery dispute should be filed 15 under seal based on a designation of confidentiality by Defendant Last Brand, Inc. (Quince). 16 Quince filed a statement in response asserting that the document—a summary of its spending on 17 Google AdWords advertising for certain products—reveals confidential information about its 18 marketing strategies. ECF No. 98. Although Deckers initially indicated that it “intend[ed] to 19 oppose Defendant’s confidentiality designation and [would] submit its briefing in accordance with 20 Local Rule 79-5(f),” ECF No. 94 at 2, Deckers did not file a brief in opposition to sealing.1 21 Documents filed with discovery motions that are no “more than tangentially related to the 22 merits of a case” may be maintained under seal on a showing of “good cause,” as distinct from the 23 more stringent standard of “compelling reasons” to seal documents filed in contexts more closely 24 tied to the merits. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 25 2016).2 26 1 Deckers has now twice indicated that it would submit briefs in opposition to sealing that it failed 27 to file. See ECF No. 82 at 2. Deckers is admonished to ensure that its representations to the Court 1 Quince has shown good cause to seal the AdWords summary. The Court therefore 2 || ORDERS that document to remain under seal. This Order does not reach the question of whether 3 “compelling reasons” would support sealing the same document in a different context more 4 || closely related to the merits of the case. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: November 12, 2024 7 g on, | Marry — ‘A J. CISNEROS 9 ited States Magistrate Judge 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 “dispositive” and “non-dispositive” motions. ECF No. 98 at 2 (citing Kamakana v. City & County 26 || of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006)). This Court has previously explained that “(a|lthough the Ninth Circuit has perhaps not formally abrogated that test, its explanation of the 07 appropriate standard in Center for Auto Safety substantially displaced the older focus on whether a motion is ‘dispositive,’ instead setting forth the ‘more than tangentially related’ standard cited 2g || above.” ECF No. 90 at 2 n.2. Quince is encouraged to cite the more recent legal standard in future requests to file under seal.