Morilha v. Alphabet Inc.
- Jon Tigar
- 4:24-cv-02793
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Morilha v. Alphabet Inc., Judge Tigar denied Morilha’s motion to seal transcript excerpts because he did not show compelling reasons.
Daniel Vitor Morilha and public access to the court record; the court denied the request to seal but directed that the material already filed under seal remain under seal.
What happened
Morilha v. Alphabet Inc. concerns Plaintiff Daniel Vitor Morilha’s request to seal portions of a transcript from his dissolution proceedings.
Morilha attached the transcript as an exhibit to a request for judicial notice and submitted a declaration supporting his sealing request. The court applied rules requiring a party to identify legally protectable material and overcome the public’s strong interest in access to court records.
Judge Tigar denied the motion because Morilha did not explain compelling reasons for sealing the redacted portions. The court said the material already filed under seal would remain under seal and that Morilha did not need to file another sealing motion because the related motion to stay had already been denied.
The detailed version
- Morilha v. Alphabet Inc. · No. 4:24-cv-02793
- Jon Tigar
- Dec. 4, 2024
Background
Plaintiff Daniel Vitor Morilha moved to file under seal portions of a transcript of his dissolution proceedings. He attached the transcript as an exhibit to a request for judicial notice and filed a supporting declaration. The motion was filed as ECF No. 55.
Legal standard
The court explained that a party seeking to seal a court filing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and overcome the strong presumption that court records should be publicly accessible. The request must establish that the material is privileged, protected as a trade secret, or otherwise entitled to legal protection, and it must be limited to only material that can properly be sealed.
Because the transcript was attached to a request for judicial notice, the court applied the standard requiring “compelling reasons” to overcome the public’s interest in disclosure. The court stated that compelling reasons must be supported by specific facts showing that the reasons for secrecy outweigh the general policy favoring access to court records.
Ruling
The court held that Morilha had not articulated any compelling reasons why the redacted portions of the transcript should be sealed. It therefore denied the administrative motion to seal.
The court also stated that, because it had already denied Morilha’s related motion to stay, Morilha did not need to file a renewed sealing motion. The material filed under seal at ECF No. 55 was to remain under seal.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.