Nichols v. AARP, Inc.
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:20-cv-06616
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Nichols v. AARP, Inc., Judge Corley granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motion to seal court filings.
The parties and the public’s access to the specified court filings, exhibits, and portions of the court’s earlier order.
What happened
In Nichols v. AARP, Inc., the parties asked the court to seal excerpts of their briefs, exhibits, and parts of an earlier order concerning defendants’ motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment.
The court said judicial records are generally presumed open to the public and that sealing requires specific reasons, such as protecting confidential business information from competitive harm. It granted sealing for some materials, denied it for others, and granted or denied sealing for particular portions of several documents and exhibits.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered a redacted version of the earlier summary-judgment order and stated that the administrative motion to seal was granted in part and denied in part.
The detailed version
- Nichols v. AARP, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-06616
- Jacquelyn Corley
- May 17, 2021
Background
The parties filed a renewed joint administrative motion to seal excerpts of their briefing, portions or entire exhibits, and portions of the court’s February 19, 2021 order concerning defendants’ motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The court had previously granted in part and denied in part an earlier request to seal materials related to that motion.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records and court documents are presumed to be available to the public. For materials filed with a dispositive motion, the court generally applies a “compelling reasons” standard, meaning the party seeking secrecy must show specific harm that justifies restricting public access. Under the court’s local rule, sealing may be appropriate for privileged material, trade secrets, or other information protected by law.
The court stated that confidential business information—such as licensing agreements, financial terms, confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies—may satisfy this standard. But general statements about United’s royalty payment to AARP under the SHIP Agreement, statements that the royalty expense is included in Medigap pricing, references to agreements without confidential terms, and the 4.9% royalty amount were not shown to reveal competitively harmful information. The court also found that links to publicly available advertisements were not shown to justify sealing.
Ruling
The court granted in part and denied in part the administrative motion to seal. It granted sealing for specified portions of defendants’ summary-judgment motion and plaintiffs’ opposition. It granted sealing for most of Exhibit 15, except for screenshots of advertisements available through Google Search, and granted sealing for Exhibits 16, 19, 21, 46, 48, 50, 60, 63, 68, 74, 76, 77, 80, 87, and other listed materials. It denied sealing for Exhibit 18, Exhibit 72, Exhibits 84, 93, 94, and 97, and specified portions of Exhibits 23, 83, and 98. It also granted sealing for specified portions of defendants’ reply and one specified portion of the February 19, 2021 summary-judgment order, while denying sealing for the remaining portions of that order. The court stated that it would issue a redacted version of the order and that its ruling disposed of docket entry 58.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.