ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

[Doc. No. 15

KAREN S. CRAWFORD, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is defendants' Motion to File Documents Under Seal. [Doc. No. 159]. Specifically, defendants have submitted Supplemental Briefing Regarding Defendants' Motion for Protective Order, the Supplemental Declaration of Johnny L. Armijo, and the Supplemental Declaration of Heather M Robinson. [Doc. No. 158]. Defendants brings this Motion pursuant to Local Rule 79.2(c) asserting that good cause exists in favor of sealing the documents. For the reasons explained in more detail below, defendants Motion to File Documents Under Seal is GRANTED.

Documents filed under seal are not accessible to the public. In the Ninth Circuit, there is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. Hages tad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing strong presumption in context of civil trial). A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the "compelling reasons" standard. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). That is, the party must "articulate[ ] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings." Id. (internal citation omitted). The court must "conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests" of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. After considering these interests, ifthe court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must "base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434 (internal citation omitted).

In general, "compelling reasons" sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when "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. Nixon v. Warner Commc `ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 & n. 7 (1978).

Here, the information defendants seeks to file under seal relates to the technical surveillance capabilities of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol ("CBP") at ports of entry ("POEs") across the U.S. southern border and specific information regarding CBP contracts and cost estimates. [Doc. No. 158 at pp. 1-2]. The documents also describe in detail the surveillance infrastructure at certain POEs, "as well as potential vulnerabilities related to the cybersecurity of [said] infrastructure." [id. at p. 3]. Defendants contend that the release of the information "would jeopardize not only operations at those [POEs], but also the safety and security of those working in and around the [POEs]." [Id.]. The supporting declarations and briefing also contain specific and confidential "contracting information." [Id.]. Defendants contend the disclosure of cost estimates for "information technology support services and equipment at various ports of entry" provided by certain contractors would "harm [the] contractor's competitiveness." [Id.].

Accordingly, because the Court finds the above-mentioned grounds to be compelling reasons that outweigh the public's interest in disclosure, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's motion to file under seal. Defendants' may file the following under seal: Supplemental Brief Regarding Defendants' Motion for Protective Order; (2) Supplemental Declaration of Johnny L. Armijo; and (3) the Supplemental Declaration of Heather M. Robinson. [Doc. No. 155]

IT IS SO ORDERED.