Splunk Inc. v. Cribl, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10 SPLUNK INC., 11 Plaintiff, No. C 22-07611 WHA
12 v.
13 CRIBL, INC. and CLINT SHARP, ORDER RE RULE 12 AND
DISCOVERY LETTER BRIEF
14 Defendants.
SEALING MOTIONS
15
16 17 This order addresses administrative motions to seal filed in association with Rule 12 motions 18 and discovery letter briefs in this action (Dkt. Nos. 89, 91, 94, 98). 19 There is a strong public policy in favor of openness in our court system and the public is 20 entitled to know to whom we are providing relief (or not) and why. See Kamakana v. City & 21 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Consequently, access to motions 22 and their attachments that are “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be 23 sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 24 Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially 25 related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” …