Summary
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California reserved ruling on Defendants’ motion to seal an entire agreement attached to the notice of removal. The Court found the request overbroad and ordered Defendants to file an amended declaration narrowly identifying the portions requiring sealing by March 18, 2025, warning that failure to do so would result in denial of the motion.
Holdings
- The motion to seal was overbroad because defendants sought to seal the entire lengthy agreement rather than narrowly identified portions containing confidential information; the court therefore reserved ruling and required an amended declaration and narrowly tailored sealing request.
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants established a sufficient basis to seal an entire agreement attached to the notice of removal.
- Whether defendants were required to pursue less restrictive alternatives, including redaction of truly confidential information, before seeking to seal the entire document.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (3)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)(followed)
- Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…