ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DELL'S SEALING REQUEST
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
On September 18, 2015, Defendant Dell, Inc. ("Dell") submitted for in camera consideration a Request to Seal Documents and to File Redacted Versions, a proposed sealing order, and the 39 pages of documents sought to be sealed. The documents requested to be sealed are identified in a publicly filed Notice of Request to Seal Documents and to File Redacted Versions ("Notice") as certain pages of Dell's Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification ("Opposition") and certain pages of the Report of Dr. Mohan Rao submitted in support of the Opposition ("Report"). (Notice 1:4-2:1, ECF No. 134.)
Dell states that it "seeks to file these excerpts under seal because the information at issue [was] the subject of a[n earlier] motion to seal (Doc. 128), which the Court granted (Doc. 129)." (Id. at 2:2-3.)
Dell also requests an "order permitting the filing of . . . redacted versions of the Opposition and Report" under Local Rule 140(b). (Id. at 2:10-11.)
DISCUSSION
The September 10, 2015 Order Granting Joint Renewed Sealing Request discussed the two standards that generally govern sealing requests. (See Order 4:25-6:8, ECF No. 129; see also Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-80 (9th Cir. 2006) (discussing the "good cause" and "compelling reasons" sealing standards).) Therefore, they are not repeated herein.
The Court need not decide which sealing standard applies to Dell's request since Dell has shown that certain documents should be sealed and redactions permitted under the heightened compelling reasons standard, and Dell has not satisfied the lesser good cause standard concerning the remainder of its request.
A. Request to Seal
Dell has shown "compelling reasons" to seal pages 2, 6-7, 10-12, and 21-22 of its Opposition, pages 2, 7, 8-14, and 16-19 of its Report, and Tab B, page 2 to the Report. These documents contain business information the public disclosure of which could be detrimental to Best Buy's competitive interests. Williams v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 604 (E.D. Cal. 2013) ("`[S]ources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing' often warrant protection under seal." (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978))).
In contrast, Dell has not shown even good cause to seal the remaining pages of its Opposition and Report. "Because of the strong presumption of access to [court] records, . . . [s]ealing orders . . . must be narrowly tailored." Perry v. City & Cnty. of S.F., No. 10-16696, 2011 WL 2419868, at *21 (9th Cir. 2011). Therefore, "any interest justifying closure must be specified with particularity, and there must be [a showing] that the [redaction requested] is narrowly confined to protect that interest." Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted).
B. Proposed Redactions
Further, Dell has shown "compelling reasons" to justify its proposed redactions with the exception of the following proposed redactions:
Proposed Redactions to Opposition:
Page 1 — all;
Page 2, line 1, starting with "Under" through page 2, line 2, ending with "file";
Page 2, line 2, starting with "or circulars)," through page 2, line 4, ending with "motion.";
Page 6, line 3, the word "Three";
Page 6, line 7, starting with "He" through page 6, line 8, ending with "First,";
Page 6, line 9, starting with "Second," through page 6, line 18, ending with "with:";
Page 6, line 18, starting with "(ii)" through page 6, line 24, ending with "created:";
Page 7, line 1, starting with "Plaintiff," through page 7, line 5, ending with "representations.";
Page 7, line 13 starting with "In contrast," through page 8, line 9, ending with "2007.";
Page 8, footnote 4;
Page 10, line 7, starting with "II." through page 10, line 9, ending with "that";
Page 10, line 15, starting with "Plaintiff" through page 10, line 18, ending with "supra";
Page 10, line 26, starting with "It" through page 10, line 27, ending with "life.";
Page 11, line 5, starting with "Finally," through page 11, line 11, ending with "improper.";
Page 12, line 1, starting with "Second," through page 12, line 5, ending with "purchase,'";
Page 12, line 13, starting with "Specifically," through page 12, line 21, ending with "use').";
Page 13 — all;
Page 14 — all;
Page 15 — all;
Page 16 — all;
Page 18 — all;
Page 19 — all;
Page 20 — all;
Page 21, line 14, starting with "As" through page 21, line 16, ending with "required.";
Page 21, line 19, starting with "As" through page 21, line 22, ending with "12-16.";
Page 21, line 24, starting with "For" through page 21, line 25, ending with "& 12."; and
Page 22, line 3, starting with "To" through page 22, line 16, ending with "See id."
Proposed Redactions to Report:
Page 2, headings IV (B) and (C);
Page 3 — all;
Page 6 — all;
Page 7, the last two paragraphs, starting with "— In fact," through "outcome.";
Page 8, the first paragraph, starting with "Indeed, and ending with "Mr. Sarsfield.";
Page 8, the three paragraphs following the first bullet point, starting with "Plaintiff's argument" through "certification in this case.";
Page 14, paragraph 18 and footnotes 29 and 31;
Page 15 — all;
Page 19, the two paragraphs following the bullet point, starting with "Plaintiff's argument" through "Plaintiff's theory";
Page 20, the text above the bullet point, starting with "of harm" through "in this case.";
Tab B, page 1 — all; and
Tab B, page 3 — all.
Dell has not justified for the referenced redactions even under the lesser good cause standard.
CONCLUSION
For the stated reasons, Dell's sealing request is granted in part, and denied in part.
Dell shall provide to the Clerk an electronic copy of the documents to be filed under seal as prescribed in Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i) within seven (7) days from the date this order is filed.
Further, Dell shall file the authorized redacted versions of its Opposition and Report on the public docket within seven (7) days from the date this order is filed.
