ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

THELTON E. HENDERSON, District Judge.

Plaintiffs seek to file portions of their motion for partial summary judgment and certain exhibits thereto under seal, because such material was previously designated "Confidential" by Defendant Mercedes-Benz U.S.A., LLC ("MBUSA"). After carefully reviewing Plaintiffs' administrative motion and MBUSA's declaration justifying the designations, the Court now DENIES Plaintiffs' administrative motion without prejudice, for the reasons set forth below.

DISCUSSION

There is "a strong presumption in favor of [public] access when deciding whether to seal records." Apple Inc. v. Pystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011). This strong presumption "applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments . . . because the resolution of a dispute on the merits . . . is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the `public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.'" Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986)).

A party seeking to file documents under seal "must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. . . ." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal alteration and citation omitted). "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. at 1179. "The `compelling reasons' standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order." Id.

Here, Plaintiffs seek to file documents under seal because the documents, or materials on which they rely, were previously designated "Confidential" by MBUSA. Administrative Mot. at 1 (Docket No. 106). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), MBUSA filed a declaration on December 1, 2014, purporting to establish that all of the designated material was sealable. Yoshino Decl. at 1-2 (Docket No. 110). However, MBUSA's explanations are vague and conclusory. MBUSA argues that the designated materials contain "sensitive and confidential warranty information and policies," and that, for some of the material, "Only certain authorized personnel have access to the information. . . ." Id. Yet, MBUSA does not identify any specific harm that it would suffer if this material were disclosed, much less a compelling reason, based on specific facts, to overcome the public's interest in disclosure.

Without greater justification, the Court cannot conclude that the designated material meets the standard to be filed under seal. However, neither will the Court permit Plaintiffs to publicly file this material without giving MBUSA an opportunity to provide such justification. For this reason, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' administrative motion without prejudice. Within seven days of entry of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file either a renewed administrative motion to file documents under seal, or a joint stipulation in which MBUSA grants permission to file the protected material pursuant to sections 7.2 and 12.3 of the stipulated protective order. See Stipulated Protective Order at 7, 11 (Docket No. 77). If Plaintiffs file a renewed administrative motion, MBUSA shall file a renewed declaration, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), identifying what compelling reasons and specific facts support sealing the documents in regard to the motion for partial summary judgment.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs' administrative motion to file documents under seal is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.