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