ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SEAL [Dkt. No. 30.]

GONZALO P. CURIEL, District Judge.

Defendant filed a motion to seal to file the entirety of the Declaration of Jennifer Flexer submitted in support of its motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 30.) No opposition was filed.

There is a presumptive right of public access to court records based upon the common law and the first amendment. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212-13 (9th Cir. 2002). Nonetheless, access may be denied to protect sensitive confidential information. Parties seeking to seal documents in a dispositive motion must meet the high threshold requiring "compelling reasons" with specific factual findings to support a sealing. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). The "compelling reasons" test requires showing more than just "good cause." Id.

According to the undersigned judge's chambers rules, documents filed under seal will be limited to only those documents, or portions thereof, necessary to protect such sensitive information. Therefore, a redacted document may be appropriate to protect the portions of the brief or declaration containing confidential information.

Here, Defendant argues it seeks to file under seal Flexor's declaration because it includes confidential business information such as the number of members that it has in various geographic areas. While such information may be compelling, sealing the entirety of Flexor's declaration is not supported by compelling reasons. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to seal subject to refiling the motion to seal with a redacted document.

IT IS SO ORDERED.