Appin v. Mergermarket (U.S.) Ltd. et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
APPIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
MERGERMARKET (U.S.) LTD.,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-03372-HSG
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 209
Pending before the Court is an omnibus administrative motion to seal materials associated
with Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 209 (“Mot.”). The
Court GRANTS the motion.
Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal
documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana
v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “This standard derives from the
common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records
and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). “[A] strong presumption in favor of
access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quotations omitted). To overcome this
strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific
factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178–79
(citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted).
Under the local rules, the party seeking to file a document or portions of it under seal also
“must explore all reasonable alternatives to filing documents under seal, minimize the number of
documents filed under seal, and avoid wherever possible sealing entire documents.” Civil L.R. 79-
Case 4:23-cv-03372-HSG Document 210 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
5(a). The party must further explain the interests that warrant sealing, the injury that will result if
sealing is declined, and why a less restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient. See Civil L.R.
79-5(c).
The parties seek to redact private medical information about the Plaintiff, as well as
information about the compensation and termination of three non-party individuals. See Mot. at
3–4. The Court has confirmed that the redactions are narrowly tailored to the personal medical
and financial information at issue. Although the document concerning Plaintiff’s medical
procedures is relevant to showing that her request for medical treatment related to her gender
identity was initially denied, the “specific procedure is not relevant to the case.” Mot. at 3. And
as to the document regarding the compensation and termination of non-party individuals, the
parties assert that “[t]his information is protected from disclosure by the laws of the countries”
where the individuals reside. Id. at 4. The Court is therefore persuaded that there is a compelling
reason for these redactions, and that this personal information is “not reasonably necessary for the
public to understand the nature of the lawsuit.” Bene v. Wells Fargo of San Leandro, No. 22-CV-
06782-HSG, 2024 WL 332895, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2024) (permitting redactions of social
security numbers, sensitive financial details, and other personal information). The Court therefore
GRANTS the parties’ motion to seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
2/20/2026
Case 4:23-cv-03372-HSG Document 210 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 2