OMNIBUS ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL

Re: Dkt. Nos. 222, 226, 229.

EDWARD J. DAVILA, District Judge.

Before the Court are administrative motions to seal filed by the parties relating to supplemental briefing submitted in connection with their motions for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 222, 226, 229. For the reasons discussed below, the motions to seal at Dkt. No. 222 and 229 are DENIED, and the motion to seal at Dkt. No. 226 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

"Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'" Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are "more than tangentially related to the merits of a case" may be sealed only upon a showing of "compelling reasons" for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of "good cause." Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this district must be "narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material." Civil L.R. 79-5(b). A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the identified material is "sealable." Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). "Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable." Id.

In Dkt. No. 222, Plaintiff moves to seal the supplemental brief and attached exhibits submitted at Dkt. No. 223 because Defendants have designated certain information contained in these materials as "Confidential." Dkt. No. 222. However, Defendants have submitted a statement that they consent to the unsealing of these materials, as these materials do not contain confidential trade secrets or information that is otherwise exempt from public disclosure. Dkt. No. 225. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to seal at Dkt. No. 222 is DENIED. Pursuant Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), Plaintiff must file the unredacted documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order.

In Dkt. No. 226, Plaintiff moves to seal the supplemental brief and attached exhibits submitted at Dkt. No. 226 because Defendants have designated certain information contained in these materials as "Confidential." Dkt. No. 226 at 3. However, Defendants have not submitted a declaration in support of sealing. See Dkt. No. 227. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to seal at Dkt. No. 226 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Unless Defendants first submit a declaration in support of sealing (i.e., within 4 days from the filing of this order), Plaintiff must, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), file the unredacted documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order.

In Dkt. No. 229, Defendants move to seal the supplemental brief and attached exhibits submitted at Dkt. No. 229 because Plaintiff has designated certain information contained in these materials as "Confidential." Dkt. No. 229 at 2. However, Plaintiff has submitted a statement that he consents to the unsealing of these materials, as these materials do not contain confidential trade secrets or information that is otherwise exempt from public disclosure. Dkt. No. 231. Accordingly, Defendants' motion to seal at Dkt. No. 229 is DENIED. Pursuant Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), Defendants must file the unredacted documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.