Bold Limited v. Rocket Resume, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 BOLD LIMITED, et al., Case No. 22-cv-01045-BLF
8 Plaintiffs,
ORDER REGARDING SEALING
9 v. MOTIONS IN CONNECTION WITH
BRIEFING ON MOTION TO
10 ROCKET RESUME, INC., et al., DISQUALIFY COUNSEL 11 Defendants. [Re: ECF No. 130, 131, 132, 155, 163]
12 13 Before the Court are the parties’ sealing motions relating to the briefing on Plaintiff Bold 14 Limited’s motion to disqualify counsel. See ECF No. 130, 131, 132, 155, 163. The Court has 15 considered the motions, and its rulings are laid out below. 16 I. LEGAL STANDARD 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 18 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 20 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are 21 “more…