Richards
Richards v. Centripetal Networks, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALBERT RICHARDS, Case No. 23-cv-00145-HSG
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
9 v. SEAL
10 CENTRIPETAL NETWORKS, INC., et al., Re: Dkt. No. 127 11 Defendants.
12 13 Pending before the Court is an administrative motion to seal materials that Plaintiff filed in 14 opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 127. For the reasons detailed 15 below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 18 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana 19 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the 20 common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records 21 and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption…