ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF THE RECORD

[ECF NO. 127]

MITCHELL D. DEMBIN, Magistrate Judge.

On May 25, 2016, Plaintiff filed this Motion to Seal Portions of the Record. (ECF No. 127). Plaintiff identifies the documents he seeks to redact or seal by their exhibit designation, but Plaintiff does not identify the docket number and does not identify which motion these documents pertain to. Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the docket and, with the exceptions noted below, has discerned that Plaintiff is referring to the following documents and information:

Plaintiff urges sealing/redaction on the grounds that (1) some of these exhibits reveal his private identification numbers, and (2) the "investigatory files attached to the opposition for MSJ be sealed because the attorney's [sic] of the City of Chula Vista release [sic] those record's [sic] for gratifying private spite and the investigatory files may create public scandal and will likely cause that libelous statements with pictures will circulate a prime example is Chris Brown." Plaintiff explains that he is not yet as popular as Chris Brown, but does plan on writing more books like his unpublished "The Ultimate Guide to Success and Profit," and argues these filings prejudice his "persona."

Judicial records are presumptively open to public inspection. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010); Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). This includes pleadings filed with the court and discovery material attached to those pleadings. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003).

Due to the common law "right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents," a party moving to seal judicial records must show that "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that his social security number should be redacted from Exhibit B and his birth date should be redacted from Exhibits A and B. FED. R. CIV. P. 5.2(a) (parties are required to redact social security numbers and birth dates from electronic filings).

Except for those redactions, Plaintiff's requests to seal are "based on flimsy generic explanations." Open Text S.A. v. Box, Inc., No. 13-cv-04910-JD, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177484, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 26, 2014). Compelling reasons is a strict standard, requiring the movant to show specific, individualized reasons for sealing the material, "without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." See Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679. Rule 5.2 does not require redaction of the other types of information, ranging from driver's license and FBI numbers, to pictures taken in public spaces, to sworn declarations describing the events at issue. Nor does Plaintiff offer more than hypothesis or conjecture for why exposing any of this material to the public will lead to public scandal or how it gratifies private spite or constitutes libel.

The Court finds Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden to show compelling reasons for redaction or sealing of any of the material except for his birth date and social security number. Plaintiff's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Accordingly, the Clerk SHALL replace the image of ECF No. 116-16 with a new version of the image that redacts Plaintiff's social security number from Exhibit B and his birth date from Exhibits A and B.

IT IS SO ORDERED.