ORDER GRANTING RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

CHARLES R. BREYER, District Judge.

Volkswagen previously moved to file under seal portions of exhibits to the declaration of Jay R. Lytle, a declaration that it submitted in support of its omnibus opposition to Plaintiffs' motions to remand. (See Dkt. No. 4231.) Because Volkswagen did not file proposed redacted versions of the exhibits, the Court denied the motion without prejudice and instructed Volkswagen to renew its motion. (See Dkt. No. 5789.)

Volkswagen has renewed its motion and has now provided proposed redacted versions of Exhibits A, B, and C to the Lytle declaration. Volkswagen seeks to redact only a small category of information in the exhibits: Vehicle Identification Numbers ("VINs") that Volkswagen obtained from non-public sources for certain Plaintiffs' vehicles.

In the context of interpreting The Federal Magistrates Act, the Ninth Circuit has held that "a motion to remand is a dispositive one," because "at least with respect to federal court proceedings . . . [a remand order] put[s] the parties effectively out of federal court." Flam v. Flam, 788 F.3d 1043, 1046-47 (9th Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). When a party seeks to seal information that is included with a dispositive motion, the request to seal must be supported by a compelling reason. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006).

There is a compelling reason for sealing VINs that are obtained from non-public sources. As the Federal Trade Commission previously stated in this MDL, VINs can be used to further identify theft. (See Dkt. No. 1608-1.) The public has a strong interest in preventing identify theft, which is a pernicious practice. And indeed, in Kamakana a magistrate judge concluded that preventing identify theft was a compelling reason supporting the sealing of home addresses and social security numbers—and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. See 447 F.3d at 1184.

Because a compelling reason justifies sealing the VINs in question, the Court GRANTS Volkswagen's motion to seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.