Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 13, 2025

Schmidt v. Moss Landing Power Company, LLC

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:25-cv-02475
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Schmidt v. Moss Landing Power Company, Judge Kim reserved ruling on defendants’ motion to seal and ordered a narrower filing.

Who this affects

The defendants’ request to seal the agreement was affected; the court gave defendants until March 18, 2025, to submit a narrower request and reserved ruling in the meantime.

What happened

In Schmidt v. Moss Landing Power Company, LLC, defendants asked to seal an entire lengthy agreement attached to the notice of removal.

The court explained that judicial records generally are open to the public and that parties must seek narrower alternatives, such as redacting only truly sensitive information. It found the request to seal the entire agreement overbroad.

The court reserved ruling and ordered defendants to file an amended declaration by March 18, 2025, seeking to seal only portions that reveal confidential aspects of the agreement. Judge Sallie Kim stated that the motion would be denied in full if defendants missed the deadline.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Schmidt v. Moss Landing Power Company, LLC · No. 4:25-cv-02475
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Mar. 13, 2025

Background

Defendants moved to seal an entire exhibit attached to the notice of removal. The court described the exhibit as a lengthy agreement and found that defendants’ request to seal the entire agreement was overbroad.

Legal standard

The court stated that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. To overcome that presumption, the party seeking secrecy must identify compelling reasons, supported by specific factual findings, that outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. The court also cited the Northern District of California’s rule requiring parties to consider reasonable alternatives, minimize sealed material, and avoid sealing entire documents when redaction of sensitive information would suffice.

Ruling

The court reserved ruling on defendants’ motion to seal. It ordered defendants to file, no later than March 18, 2025, an amended declaration attaching the agreement and narrowly seeking to seal only the portions that reveal confidential aspects of the agreement. The court stated that if defendants failed to file the declaration by that date, it would deny the motion to seal in full. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.