IN RE:STUBHUB REFUND LITIGATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
IN RE: STUBHUG REFUND
LITIGATION
This Document Relates to All Cases
Case No. 20-md-02951-HSG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
CONSIDER WHETHER ANOTHER
PARTY’S MATERIAL SHOULD BE
SEALED
Re: Dkt. No. 311
Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to consider whether to seal
portions of Plaintiffs’ unredacted Memorandum in support of their opposition (see Dkt. No. 311-2)
to Defendant StubHub, Inc.’s (“StubHub”) Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 291), as well
as the entirety of 28 exhibits filed with Plaintiffs’ opposition. Dkt. No. 311. For the reasons set
forth below, the Court DENIES the motion to seal.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially
related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with
“compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
disclosures. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016);
Kamakana v. City & Cty of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v.
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). “This standard derives from the
common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records
and documents.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.”
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the
Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 324 Filed 02/05/26 Page 1 of 5

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion must “articulate compelling
reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the
public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial
process” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations omitted).
What constitutes a “compelling reason” is “best left to the sound discretion of the trial
court.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599). However, “[i]n
general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify
sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper
purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate
libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). The
Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep
certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain
judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for
its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. “The mere fact that the production of
records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will
not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking
to file under seal must submit “a request that establishes that the document, or portions thereof, are
privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . The
request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civil L.R. 79-
5(b). Courts have found that “confidential business information” in the form of “license
agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies”
satisfies the “compelling reasons” standard. See In re Qualcomm Litig., No. 3:17-cv-0108-GPC-
MDD, 2017 WL 5176922, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017) (observing that sealing such information
“prevent[ed] competitors from gaining insight into the parties’ business model and strategy”);
Finisar Corp. v. Nistica, Inc., No. 13-cv-03345-BLF (JSC), 2015 WL 3988132, at *5 (N.D. Cal.
June 30, 2015).
Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 324 Filed 02/05/26 Page 2 of 5

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
II. DISCUSSION
Because the sealing motion relates to Plaintiffs’ opposition to StubHub’s dispositive
motion for summary judgment, which is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case,
the instant motion is governed by the compelling reasons standard. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d
at 1099. All the information and exhibits sought to be sealed have been designated as confidential
by StubHub. Declaration of Bradley K. King (“King Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 311-1), ¶ 2. As such,
StubHub has filed its statement and declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Defendant
StubHub’s Statement in support of Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Material
Designated as Confidential (Dkt. No. 314); Declaration of William P. Donovan (“Donovan
Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 314-1). The Court finds that StubHub has not articulated compelling reasons to
seal the information and exhibits sought to be sealed.
StubHub proffers three reasons for sealing portions of Plaintiffs’ unredacted Memorandum
and the entirety of 28 exhibits attached to that Memorandum. See Dkt. No. 314 at 3. First,
StubHub argues that disclosure of its internal notes and communications regarding the company’s
strategy for modifying its event cancellation policy in response to COVID-19 “could result in
improper use by business competitors seeking to replicate [StubHub’s] business practices and
circumvent the time and resources necessary in developing their own practices and strategies.” Id.
(citing Algarin v. Maybelline, LLC, 2014 WL 690410, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2014)). Second,
Exhibits 33, 36, and 40 contain identifying customer information. Id. (citing In re Google
Location Hist. Litig., 514 F. Supp. 3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2021)). Third, the unredacted
Memorandum “contains information reflecting internal business discussions at StubHub that are
subject to the same strategic and reputational concerns as the Exhibits.” In short, StubHub
emphasizes that “[p]ublic access to these documents would divulge information critical to
StubHub’s operations that would hurt StubHub’s professional reputation and competitive standing
in the market for customers and third-party event and ticketing partners.” Dkt. No. 314 at 3.
StubHub has not met the high standard for sealing these documents. Specifically, StubHub
fails to adequately articulate the injury that will result if sealing is denied, Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(ii),
and does not articulate at all why a less restrictive alternative to sealing entire exhibits would not
Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 324 Filed 02/05/26 Page 3 of 5

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
be sufficient, Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(1)(iii). StubHub did not provide a proposed order narrowly
tailored to seal only legitimately sealable material, such as personally identifiable information of
StubHub users. More importantly, StubHub’s argument that disclosure of its internal business
communications related to its strategy for modifying its event cancellation policy in response to
COVID-19 could result in competitors replicating StubHub’s business practices without needing
to expend effort or resources is not well taken. There is little reason to anticipate ongoing
business harm from disclosure of StubHub’s past business strategy when this case concerns
StubHub’s event cancellation policy in 2020 and 2021. And this is especially true given that
StubHub already agreed to provide over $16 million in cash refunds to over 75,000 users. Dkt.
No. 310 at 12, 12 n. 28. Moreover, to the extent StubHub’s basis for sealing is grounded in
“reputational concerns,” the Ninth Circuit has held that “[t]he mere fact that the production of
records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will
not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1179.
Nor are StubHub’s specific bases for sealing each document helpful. StubHub repeats that
plaintiffs’ unredacted Memorandum and each exhibit, with the exception of the three that contain
identifying information regarding a StubHub customer, “[c]ontains and discusses information
designated Confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order as it contains information
related to StubHub’s internal business decision making.” See Donovan Decl., Ex. A (Dkt. No.
314-1).
III. CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s administrative motion to seal its unredacted Memorandum
(Dkt. No. 311-2) and Exhibits 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 41 to the Memorandum. The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s
administrative motion to seal Exhibits 33, 36, and 40 to the Memorandum. Within seven (7) days
of the date of this order, the parties shall, after meeting and conferring, file a chart identifying by
document name, sealed Docket number, and page and line/paragraph number only the exact
personally identifiable information of StubHub’s users the parties seek to maintain under seal.
Exhibits 33, 36, and 40 will remain conditionally under seal until the Court makes a final ruling on
Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 324 Filed 02/05/26 Page 4 of 5

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United
 States District Court
Northern District of California
sealing after reviewing the chart. At that time, the parties will be directed to e-file redacted
documents that redact only the information the Court determines may remain under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
2/5/2026
Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 324 Filed 02/05/26 Page 5 of 5