ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO SEAL AND REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENTS

LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.

Before the Court are several administrative motions to seal documents and to remove incorrectly filed documents. See ECF Nos. 1160, 1150, 1147, 1132, 1080, 1123, 1039, 1033, 1035, 1039, and 9531 ("Motions to Seal").

Courts have historically recognized a "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). "Unless a particular court record is one `traditionally kept secret,'" courts generally apply "a `strong presumption in favor of access.'" Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Where a party seeks to file under seal documents attached only to a non-dispositive motion, however, a showing of "good cause" often outweighs the public's interest in access, because "the public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action." Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

By contrast, where a party seeks to file under seal documents attached to a dispositive motion, the strong presumption of public access can be overcome only by an "`articulat[ion of] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings," and the Court must "`conscientiously balance[] the competing interests' of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret." Id. at 1178-79 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). "A `good cause' showing will not, without more, satisfy a `compelling reasons' test." Id. at 1180. The Ninth Circuit has explained that "compelling reasons" that justify sealing court records generally exist "when such `court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,' such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets." Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). "The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records." Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). "Unlike private materials unearthed during discovery, judicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default. This fact sharply tips the balance in favor of production when a document, formerly sealed for good cause under Rule 26(c), becomes part of a judicial record." Id. at 1180 (internal citation omitted).

The pending Motions to Seal relate to the preliminary injunction, Samsung's motion to stay the preliminary injunction, or the potential evidence at trial. Although the preliminary injunction and Samsung's motion to stay are non-dispositive, they cannot fairly be characterized as "unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action." Kamakana, 447 F.3d. at 1179. To the contrary, these motions implicate the very core of Apple's claims and Apple's desired relief in bringing suit against Samsung. As evidenced by the plethora of media and general public scrutiny of the preliminary injunction proceedings, the public has a significant interest in these court filings, and therefore the strong presumption of public access applies.

Regarding the motion to seal potential evidence at trial, the Court has made clear to the parties that all evidence introduced at trial will be open to the public, with the narrow exception of "exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserves protection." Order at 2, ECF No. 1256 (citing Oracle Am. v. Google, Inc., No. 10-CV-03561-WHA, at ECF No. 540). With a July 30, 2012 trial date, this case has reached a stage of the proceedings where "the presumption of openness will apply to all documents[,] and only documents of exceptionally sensitive information that truly deserve protection will be allowed to be redacted or kept from the public." ECF No. 1256 at 3.

Therefore, the Court now determines that the strong public interest in the proceedings in this case merits imposition of the heightened "compelling reasons" standard on the pending Motions to Seal that governs the sealing of documents attached to dispositive motions or evidence submitted in trial. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

The Court has reviewed the Motions to Seal. While some of the information may have been sealable under the more pliant "good cause" standard, much of it failed to meet even that lower burden. For example, some of the information sought to be sealed includes names of document custodians, descriptions of features of devices, and photographs of items that are in the public record. Moreover, none of the information sought to be sealed satisfies the more stringent "compelling reasons" standard. In light of these findings, the Court DENIES the pending administrative motions to seal and to remove incorrectly filed documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.