IntusCare, Inc. v. RTZ Associates, Inc.

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
INTUS CARE, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
RTZ ASSOCIATES, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No. 24-cv-01132-JST
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: ECF Nos. 109, 110
The Court denies Plaintiff Intus Care, Inc.’s administrative motions to file material under
seal. ECF Nos. 109, 110. As to one exhibit sought to be filed under seal, Intus states,
“Compelling reasons exist to file under seal because these documents would otherwise injure Intus
and its clients by exposing confidential communications between Intus and its clients.” ECF No.
109-1 ¶ 6. Similarly, Defendant RTZ Associates, Inc. states that disclosure of other documents
contains “sensitive business information,” the disclosure of which “could cause significant harm to
RTZ.” ECF No. 114 ¶ 3. Both parties also rely on production of the documents as
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” under the
protective order for this case. ECF No. 109-1 ¶¶ 3–5; ECF No. 114 ¶ 2.
The parties’ justifications for sealing are insufficient. E.g., Frasco v. Flo Health, Inc., No.
3:21-cv-00757-JD, 2023 WL 11983357, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 8, 2023) (“General assertions of
potential competitive or commercial harm are not enough to establish good cause for sealing court
records, and the fact that the parties may have designated a document as confidential under a
stipulated protective order is also not enough to justify sealing.” (citation modified)); Thrive Nat.
Care, Inc. v. Thrive Causemetics, Inc., No. CV 20-9091 PA (ASx), 2021 WL 5279575, at *2
(C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2021) (“Defendant’s wholly conclusory allegations of prospective competitive
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 120 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 2

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
harm which may or could result from the public filing of the documents is not the type of
particularized showing of harm necessary to support a finding that compelling reasons exist to
justify sealing.”).
In addition, the sealing requests are not narrowly tailored. For example, the parties have
not explained why entire email chains warrant sealing. Parties must “avoid wherever possible
sealing entire documents (as opposed to merely redacting the truly sensitive information in a
document).” Civil L.R. 79-5(a).
Accordingly, the motions to file under seal are denied. Intus shall file the documents
publicly within seven days of the date of this order. Alternatively, Intus may re-file their motions
to file under seal if the parties believe they can provide more specific information to justify
sealing. Any renewed motions must be narrowly tailored.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 27, 2026
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge
Case 4:24-cv-01132-JST Document 120 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 2