IN RE:STUBHUB REFUND LITIGATION

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
IN RE: STUBHUB REFUND
LITIGATION
This Document Relates to All Cases
Case No. 20-md-02951-HSG
ORDER GRANTING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL AND STIPULATION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 320, 337
Pending before the Court is an administrative motion to seal materials that Plaintiffs filed
in support of a motion for class certification and a stipulation regarding the motion to seal. Dkt.
Nos. 320, 337. For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion and the
stipulation.
I. LEGAL STANDARD
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 party seeking to seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion
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” and “significant public events.” Id. at 1178–79 (quotations
omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in
Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 338 Filed 09/15/26 Page 1 of 3

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
disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘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.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v.
Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). “The mere fact that the production of records
may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not,
without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.
The Court must “balance[] the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to
keep certain judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the 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.” Id. Civil Local Rule 79-5
supplements the compelling reasons standard set forth in Kamakana: the party seeking to file a
document or portions of it under seal “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. 79-5(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).
Records attached to nondispositive motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as such records “are often unrelated, or only
tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80
(quotations omitted). This requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm
will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of
harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman
Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotation omitted).
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs initially filed portions of their motion for class certification and supporting
documents provisionally under seal. See Dkt. No. 320. The Court stayed all briefing on the
motion for class certification before Defendant could file a supporting declaration as required
Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 338 Filed 09/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
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
under Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(3). And since then, the Court has compelled Plaintiffs’ remaining claims
to arbitration and stayed the case pending arbitration. See Dkt. Nos. 333, 336. Despite the case
being administratively closed, the Court must consider the pending motion to seal. At the
September 1, 2026, case management conference, the Court directed the parties to meet and confer
and file a stipulation and proposed order resolving the motion to seal. The parties did so. See Dkt.
No. 337.
Although ordinarily the compelling reasons standard would apply, the Court never ruled on
the motion for class certification and the case is now administratively closed pending arbitration of
Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. The Court therefore applies the lower good cause standard. Given
the current posture of the case, the information that Defendant seeks to seal is unrelated to the
public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this case, and the public’s interest in
disclosure of this information is minimal. Accordingly, because the documents contain sensitive
business information unrelated to the public’s understanding of the judicial proceedings in this
action, the Court finds that there is good cause to file the documents under seal.
The Court accordingly GRANTS the motion to seal and GRANTS the related stipulation.
Dkt. Nos. 320, 337. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(g)(1), documents filed under seal as to
which the administrative motion is granted will remain under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge
9/15/2026
Case 4:20-md-02951-HSG Document 338 Filed 09/15/26 Page 3 of 3