§Why CasetextPricing

Hilsley v. Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc. et al

MOTION to File Documents Under Seal

6 Cited authorities

  1. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc.

    435 U.S. 589 (1978)   Cited 6,015 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing" can constitute a sufficient reason to preserve records under seal

  2. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu

    447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006)   Cited 5,820 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[t]hose who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that compelling reasons support secrecy"

  3. Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC

    809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016)   Cited 2,097 times
    Holding that we review for an abuse of discretion and that a court may seal records only for "a compelling reason"

  4. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n

    605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,605 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "compelling reasons standard applies to most [motions to seal] judicial records."

  5. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety

    137 S. Ct. 38 (2016)   Cited 80 times
    Rejecting argument that compelling reasons standard applies only to motions that are "literally dispositive," and finding it also applies to motions that go "to the heart of the case," or that are "more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action"

  6. Shimmick Construction Company, Inc. v. Officine Meccaniche Galletti-O.M.G. S.R.L.

    Case No. 13-cv-2700-BAS(JLB) (S.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2015)

    Case No. 13-cv-2700-BAS(JLB) 10-05-2015 SHIMMICK CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC./OBAYASHI CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. OFFICINE MECCANICHE GALLETTI-O.M.G. S.R.L., et al., Defendants. Hon. Cynthia Bashant United States District Judge ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL [ECF Nos. 107, 112] Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to file portions of exhibits supporting its opposition to Defendants' summary-judgment motion under seal. To date, Defendants have not opposed. For