from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” The relevant standard for purposes of Rule 26(c) is whether “ ‘good cause’ exists to protect th[e] information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.2002). This “good cause” standard presents a lower burden for the party wishing to seal documents than the “compelling reasons” standard. The cognizable public interest in judicial records which underlies the “compelling reasons” standard does not exist for documents produced between private litigants. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1134 (“When discovery material is filed with the court ... its status changes.”); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (<HOLDING>). The “good cause” standard is not limited to
holding that court may seal documents if publics right of access is outweighed by competing interests recognizing a right of access to civil proceedings holding that different interests are at stake with the right of access than with rule 26c holding that a plaintiff has no absolute unconditional right of access to the courts and no constitutional right of access to prosecute frivolous or malicious actions holding that reasonable access includes general facility access without notice and patient access with twentyfour hour notice