ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER RE CLAWBACK

Re: Dkt. No. 189

VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI, Magistrate Judge.

In connection with the parties' joint discovery letter concerning defendant Apple, Inc's ("Apple") request to claw back information revealed at a deposition that Apple contends is protected under the attorney-client privilege (Dkt. No. 190), Apple filed an administrative motion to file portions of the joint letter under seal. Dkt. No. 189. Having considered plaintiffs' submission, the Court grants the administrative motion, as set forth below.

There is a strong presumption in favor of access by the public to judicial records and documents accompanying dispositive motions that can be overcome only by a showing of "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings." Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, the presumption does not apply equally to a motion addressing matters that are only "tangentially related to the merits of a case." Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S.Ct. 38 (2016). A litigant seeking to seal documents or information in connection with such a motion must meet the lower "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1098-99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80.

Apple's motion to seal concerns information submitted in connection with a discovery dispute. The underlying discovery dispute does not address the merits of the parties' claims or defenses, but rather whether defendants' assertion of the attorney-client privilege is proper. The material to be sealed is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. The Court therefore applies the "good cause" standard of Rule 26(c).

The material proposed to be filed under seal is derived from a deposition that has been designated "Highly Confidential — Attorneys' Eyes Only." Apple contends that the material encompasses confidential business communications and that the communications are also privileged, which the parties dispute. In these circumstances, the Court finds that good cause exists to seal the following material:

IT IS SO ORDERED.