Glover et al v. County of San Mateo et al

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
RITA GLOVER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 24-cv-08793-HSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. Nos. 82, 91
Pending before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to seal. Dkt. Nos. 82, 91.
The Court GRANTS the motions.
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal
documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard
derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including
judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). A “strong
presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotation
omitted). To overcome this strong presumption, the moving party 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.” Id. at 1178–79 (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted).
Records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the underlying cause of
action” must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016);
see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized
Case 4:24-cv-08793-HSG Document 96 Filed 08/13/26 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
showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex
rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R.
Civ. Proc. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated
reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir.
1992) (quotation omitted).
Because the parties seek to seal documents related to Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment that are more than “tangentially related to the merits of [the] case,” the court applies the
“compelling reasons” standard. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1177. However, on February 18, 2026,
before the Court had issued an order on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the parties
entered into a stipulation to dismiss the entire action with prejudice. Dkt. No. 94. The Court
granted the stipulation and dismissed the case. Dkt. No. 95. The Court therefore did not consider
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and did not rely on any of the information that the
parties seek to seal. Thus, “the public interest in access to this information is minimal.” Lesnik v.
Eisenmann SE, No. 16-CV-01120-LHK, 2021 WL 2093062, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2021).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motions to seal. See, e.g., X One, Inc. v. Uber Techs. Inc.,
No. 16-CV-06050-LHK, 2020 WL 718310, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2020) (granting motions to
seal documents filed in support of motions that the Court denied as moot).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
8/13/2026
Case 4:24-cv-08793-HSG Document 96 Filed 08/13/26 Page 2 of 2