ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL Re: Dkt. Nos. 94, 102

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS, District Judge.

In a separate order concurrently filed, the Court resolves plaintiffs' motion to enforce compliance with a prior order. In connection with that motion, plaintiffs filed two administrative motions to seal, pursuant to this Court's Civil Local Rule 79-5. (Dkt. Nos. 94, 102.) This Order resolves the administrative motions to seal.

The public holds a presumptive right of access to public records, including pretrial filings in civil cases. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006); In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th Cir. 2012). In the context of information proffered in support of dispositive motions or at trial, only a continuing, compelling reason will justify sealing the information or keeping it under seal. See In re Midland, 686 F.3d at 1119. However, "the usual presumption of the public's right to access does not apply to non-dispositive motions with the same strength it applies to dispositive motions." Dugan v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, 2013 WL 1435223, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2013) (citing In re Midland, 686 F.3d at 1119). In the context of non-dispositive motions, the party seeking to place and keep information under seal need only make a showing of good cause. See id. at *1-2. "There may be `good cause' to seal records that are privileged, contain trade secrets, contain confidential research, development or commercial information, or if disclosure of the information might harm a litigant's competitive standing." Id. at *2.

The Court concludes that plaintiffs' sealing requests are appropriate and narrowly tailored. Accordingly, the motions are GRANTED.

This Order terminates Docket Numbers 94, 102.

IT IS SO ORDERED.