omitted). In light of the weaker public interest in nondisposi-tive materials, we apply the “good cause” standard when parties wish to keep them under seal. Applying the “compelling interest” standard under these circumstances would needlessly “undermine a district court’s power to fashion effective protective orders.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. Experian wishes to seal documents attached to Pintos’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Rule 26(c) does not govern these documents because they are not “private materials unearthed during discovery” but have become part of the judicial record. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Additionally, the documents do not fall within the Phillips exception to the general presumption of access because Pintos’s motion was dispositive. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 (<HOLDING>). Consequently, Experian must overcome a strong
holding in wrongful termination suit that various letters and materials produced in the course of plaintiffs discharge proceeding all of which have been attached to plaintiffs opposition papers fall under this exception and may be considered without converting the motion to one for summary judgment holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion holding that the phillips exception is expressly limited to the status of materials  attached to a nondispositive motion emphasis omitted recognizing the phillips exception holding that the materials attached to the motion for summary judgment must be admissible and usable at trial