Nextpulse, LLC v. Brunswick Corporation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 NEXTPULSE, LLC, et al., Case No. 22-cv-04071-HSG

Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION’S

v. THIRD ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION

TO CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER

BRUNSWICK CORPORATION, PARTY’S MATERIALS SHOULD BE

SEALED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 63

13 Pending before the Court is Brunswick Corporation’s (“Defendant’s”) third administrative motion to consider whether another party’s materials should be sealed. Dkt. No. 63. While this motion remains on the Court’s docket, the Court notes that the case was remanded to California state court in early 2023. For the reasons detailed below, the Court DENIES the motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE, but gives the parties options as to how to proceed. 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…