Crowder et al v. LinkedIn Corporation

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
KEVIN SCHULTE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LINKEDIN CORPORATION,
Defendant.
Case No. 22-cv-00237-HSG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 247
Pending before this Court is Defendant’s Administrative Motion to File Under Seal related
to its Motion for Relief from a Non-Dispositive Pretrial Order of a Magistrate Judge. Dkt. Nos.
246–47. No opposition was filed. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-11(b), 79-5(c). The Court GRANTS
IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for failure to narrowly tailor various sealing
requests. Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3).
Courts generally apply the “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. Cty. & 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. But records attached to motions that are only “tangentially
related to the underlying cause of action” must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097,
1099, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted); see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. The “good
cause” standard requires a “particularized 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) (quotation omitted). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 278 Filed 09/04/26 Page 1 of 4

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
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).
The good cause standard applies to this sealing motion because the underlying motion for
relief addresses a non-dispositive pretrial deposition discovery order that is “tangentially related to
the underlying cause of action.” Laatz v. Zazzle, Inc., No. 22-cv-04844-BLF, 2025 WL 460065, at
*2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2025). There are “compelling reasons,” and thus “good cause,” to seal
“sensitive financial information” that “would allow a competitor an unfair advantage” “by
allowing them to glean otherwise confidential information about” a party’s “strengths and areas
for improvement in various geographic areas and market segments that is not otherwise available
to the public.” Hunt v. Cont’l Cas. Co., No. 13-cv-05966-HSG, 2015 WL 5355398, at *2 (N.D.
Cal. Sept. 14, 2015) (quotations omitted). Thus, courts have sealed “license agreements, financial
terms, details of confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies,” as well as
“confidential and proprietary business, sales, or licensing information, including the identities of
the customers who subscribe to Defendant’s database and Defendant’s financial performance and
company strategy.” Exeltis USA Inc. v. First Databank, Inc., No. 17-cv-04810-HSG, 2020 WL
2838812, at *1–2 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2020) (collecting cases and quotations omitted). Further, in
some cases, employees’ personally identifiable information may be sealable where “not relevant to
the merits.” Snapkeys, Ltd. v. Google LLC, No. 19-cv-02658-LHK, 2021 WL 1951250, at *3
(N.D. Cal. May 14, 2021).
The Court rules as follows:
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 278 Filed 09/04/26 Page 2 of 4

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
Docket
No.
Document Proposed
Portion(s)
to be
Sealed
Ruling
Dkt.
Nos.
246 /
247-2
Motion for
Relief from
Non-
dispositive
Pretrial
Order of
Magistrate
Judge, filed
August 17,
2026.
Redactions
as
highlighted
in Exhibit
A to this
motion.
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as
follows:
There is no good cause to seal: 4:19 parenthetical related
to -173967; first clause of the first sentence of 4 n.6; 4 n.6
parenthetical related to -00188009; 5:1; 5:11; and 5 n.7
parentheticals related to -00155549, -211971. These
contain high-level, general descriptions of underlying
documents that do not in of themselves reveal any
“strengths and areas for improvement” for Defendant, or
any details about “proprietary business” activities, and are
therefore not “particularized,” narrowly tailored proposed
redactions of sealable material. Civ. L.R. 79-5(c)(3);
Gen. Motors, 307 F.3d at 1210–11; Hunt, 2015 WL
5355398, at *2; Snapkeys, 2021 WL 1951250, at *3;
Exeltis, 2020 WL 2838812, at *1–2.
Conversely, there is good cause to seal: 4:18–19
parenthetical related to -00174719; second clause of the
first sentence of 4 n.6; 5:3–5; and 5 n.7 parenthetical
related to -191393. Cf. id.
Dkt.
Nos.
246-1 /
247-3
Exhibit 1 to
Motion for
Relief from
Non-
dispositive
Pretrial
Order of
Magistrate
Judge, filed
August 17,
2026.
Sealed in
its entirety.
GRANTED as follows: There is good cause to seal this
information, as it is related to business “strengths and
areas for improvement,” “proprietary business, sales, or
licensing information,” and contains employees’
personally identifiable information. Id.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 278 Filed 09/04/26 Page 3 of 4

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
The Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion for failure to narrowly
tailor various sealing recommendations. Dkt. No. 247. By September 10, 2026, Defendant
SHALL file on the public docket a redacted version of the Motion for Relief from a Non-
Dispositive Pretrial Order of a Magistrate Judge, Dkt. No. 246, consistent with this Court’s order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
9/4/2026
Case 4:22-cv-00237-HSG Document 278 Filed 09/04/26 Page 4 of 4