ORDER RE SEALING MOTIONS

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

The parties filed dozens of sealing motions. This order resolves those motions without prejudice to whether the same material would be sealable in any further proceedings in this case. The "compelling reasons" standard applies to the bulk of these motions, which relate to materials submitted in connection with motions in limine and post-trial motions, which go to the heart of the merits of the case. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S.Ct. 38 (2016). Only "good cause" is necessary for the sealing motion relating to Google's motion for sanctions and fees (see Dkt. No. 2025).

In any future filings, where the parties file a motion supported by materials sought to be filed under seal, they should please file the underlying motion as a separate docket entry from the sealing motion. Many of the sealing motions addressed herein did not follow that procedure, causing confusion in the management of the docket, particularly when cross-referencing docket entries. Similarly, many of the supporting declarations were not identified as such, and failed to identify the motion or motions they supported, or confused the docket entry for the sealing motions in question with some other document.

Additionally, the parties' practice of overdesignating initially then partially withdrawing designations when the opposing party files documents under seal meant most motions required reference to at least two, often three or four separate documents just to discern what excerpts are sought to be sealed. Civil Local Rule 7-11(a) requires motions for administrative relief, such as sealing motions, to be accompanied by a stipulation or a declaration explaining why no stipulation could be obtained. Had our parties met and conferred over possible stipulations for these sealing motions, they might have been able to mitigate the mess they served up.

Any sealing requests not expressly granted above are DENIED, either as unsupported by a declaration at all, or as lacking compelling reasons for denying the public access to the materials.

This order further notes that the supporting declarations often identified paragraphs that contained no highlighted text (indicating materials sought to be sealed), but failed to identify nearby paragraphs that did include highlighted text. This order did not attempt to correct what appear to be numerous errors by counsel. Nor did it speculate about the reasons for sealing information where the supporting declaration offered only a perfunctory statement about a broad swath of materials and the information itself did not appear sealable on its face.

If either side seeks reconsideration based on supplemental supporting declarations, such declarations must be filed by APRIL 13 and must identify, with specificity, the compelling reason for each and every proposed redaction. Merely asserting the fact that information is kept confidential (especially if the allegedly sealable information has been inextricably mixed, via an expert's estimates, with information that does not warrant sealing) and vaguely contending its disclosure would cause competitive harm is insufficient.

The parties shall please file new versions of the documents that were the subject of this order in accordance with this order by APRIL 20. Please file them so that an ordinary mortal reviewing our docket can understand which redacted document belongs where.

Google's motion to remove an incorrectly filed exhibit (Dkt. No. 1579) is GRANTED.

Google's motion for sanctions and for civil contempt (Dkt. No. 2014) is DENIED AS MOOT, in light of the parties' settlement of the issues raised therein (see Dkt. No. 2067).

Additionally, the motion to withdraw appearances filed on behalf of non-party LG Electronics, Inc., is GRANTED (Dkt. No. 1525).

IT IS SO ORDERED.