Davis
Davis v. Pinterest, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 HAROLD DAVIS, Case No. 19-cv-07650-HSG
Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO
v. SEAL
PINTEREST, INC., Re: Dkt. Nos. 149, 154, 158, 172, 177, 190 Defendant.
12 Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of documents submitted in connection with the parties’ motions for summary judgment and motions in limine. See Dkt. Nos. 149, 154, 158, 172, 177, 190. For the reasons detailed below, the Court DENIES Dkt. Nos. 177, 190; and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Dkt. Nos. 149, 154, 158, 172. 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…