Vigdor

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DAN VIGDOR, et al., Case No. 16-cv-05326-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON ADMINISTRATIVE

MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL

9 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 150, 154, 158, 159, 163 10 SUPER LUCKY CASINO, INC., et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal 13 documents in connection with the parties’ motions in limine. Dkt. Nos. 150, 154, 158, 159, 163. 14 The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motions to file under seal, as 15 described below. 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…