Doe v. Regents of the University of California

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
JANE DOE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.
Case No. 23-cv-00598-WHO (KAW)
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
FILE UNDER SEAL (DKT. NOS. 183
AND 185); DENYING MOTION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL (DKT. NO. 178)
Re: Dkt. Nos. 178, 183, 185
On September 24, 2026, Plaintiffs filed three motions to file under seal material designated
by Defendant UC Regents. (Dkt. Nos. 178, 183, 185.) On October 6, 2026, Defendant filed a
response and declaration in support of the redactions. (Dkt. No. 196.)
Because the discovery letters are non-dispositive, Defendant need only meet the lower
“good cause” standard. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir.
2006). “For good cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific
prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips v. GMC, 307 F.3d 1206,
1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, “‘[b]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific
examples of articulated reasoning’ will not suffice.” Apple Inc. v. Alivecor, Inc., No. 22-cv-
07608-HSG, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217983, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2026) (quoting Beckman
Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992)). Here, Defendant asserts that the
redactions pertain to: (1) confidential, non-public information concerning Defendant’s digital
advertising campaigns and internal data, and (2) internal, non-public business strategy. (Dkt. No.
196 at 3-4.)
Having reviewed the proposed redactions and Defendant’s response and declaration in
support, the Court GRANTS the motions to file under seal at Dkt. Nos. 183 and 185. The Court,
Case 3:23-cv-00598-WHO Document 199 Filed 10/08/26 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
however, DENIES the motion to file under seal at Dkt. No. 178. Although Defendant makes the
general assertion that the redactions concern confidential, non-public information, the proposed
redactions pertain to generic and non-specific information, such as the use of web tracking or
analytics -- the very subject of this case -- or the possibility of a risk/benefit analysis (but not the
analysis itself). There is nothing to suggest that disclosure of such general information would
result in prejudice or harm. Accordingly, Plaintiff shall file an unredacted version of this
discovery letter within five days of the date of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2026
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:23-cv-00598-WHO Document 199 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 2