govinfo:USCOURTS-cand-5_23-cv-06116-4

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO SEAL 
1 
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 
SAN JOSE DIVISION 
PRAVIN CHANDER THALASILA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
WAYNE LO, 
Defendant. 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 
MOTIONS TO SEAL 
Re: ECF Nos. 36, 37 
Before the Court are Plaintiff Pravin Chander Thalasila’s Motions to Seal Documents and 
to Seal Case. Mot. to Seal Documents, ECF No. 36; Mot. to Seal Case, ECF No. 37. For the 
following reasons, the Court DENIES the Motions. 
Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 
including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 
1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 
(1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of 
access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 
1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to 
court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party 
seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the 
underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For 
Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to 
motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower 
“good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party 

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO SEAL 
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 
moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local 
Rule 79-5. 
Under Civil Local Rule 79-5, a motion to seal a party’s own document must include “a 
specific statement of the applicable legal standard and the reasons for keeping a document under 
seal.” Civil L.R. 79-5. This includes an explanation of “(i) the legitimate private or public 
interests that warrant sealing; (ii) the injury that will result if sealing is denied; and (iii) why a less 
restrictive alternative to sealing is not sufficient.” Id. The motion must also include evidentiary 
support from declarations where necessary and “a proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal 
only the sealable material, and which lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is 
sought to be sealed.” Id. 
Here, Plaintiff has submitted two sealing motions, which appear to be identical. See Mot. 
to Seal Documents, Mot. to Seal Case. The motions request that the Court seal “the records in this 
action” and “the court file.” Mot. to Seal Documents at 1, Mot. to Seal Case at 1. That is, 
Plaintiff seems to ask that the Court seal every document in this case, from the complaint to the 
judgment. Plaintiff contends that “[a]lthough the record reflects that Applicant was the prevailing 
party and the victim of wrongdoing, casual readers—including employers, colleagues, and 
professional contacts—may incorrectly infer financial impropriety or misconduct based solely on 
the presence of litigation.” Mot. to Seal Documents at 2, Mot. to Seal Case at 2. 
But Plaintiff does not articulate which legal standard the Court should apply to the 
motions. Nor does Plaintiff follow the instructions set out in Civil Local Rule 79-5. These 
deficiencies, combined with the breadth of Plaintiff’s request, leave the Court unable to determine 
whether any documents should properly be sealed. Consequently, Plaintiff’s Motions are 
DENIED. 
Should Plaintiff seek to re-file an Administrative Motion to Seal, the Court directs Plaintiff 
to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, including submission of a declaration establishing that the 
document or portions thereof is sealable and a proposed order that is narrowly tailored and 
articulates specific reasons supporting the decision to seal. See Civil L.R. 79-5; Apple Inc. v. 

 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO SEAL 
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 
Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150, 1162 (9th Cir. 2011) (reversing District Court order that without 
explanation sealed court documents). 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 
Dated: June 4, 2026 
 
 
EDWARD J. DAVILA 
United States District Judge 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight