National Federation of the Blind, et al v. Arizona Board of Regents, et al

Filing 47

ORDER denying without prejudice the 46 Stipulation for Entry of Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 9/9/09. (REW, )

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ) The National Federation of the Blind, The American Council of The Blind, and ) ) Darrell Shandrow, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) The Arizona Board of Regents and ) Arizona State University, ) ) ) Defendants. ) No. CV-09-1359-PHX-GMS ORDER 16 17 The parties have submitted a Stipulation for Entry of Protective Order Regarding 18 Confidential Information (Dkt. # 46). The proposed order fails to take into account Ninth 19 Circuit law restricting the circumstances under which confidentiality orders may be entered 20 and documents in the Court’s file may be sealed. 21 Two standards are relevant. “First, a ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to [the 22 sealing of] most judicial records.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 504 F.3d 792, 801 (9th Cir. 23 2007) (citing Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); 24 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2003)). “This 25 standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and 26 documents, including judicial records and documents.’ To limit this common law right of 27 access, a party seeking to seal judicial records must show that ‘compelling reasons supported 28 by specific factual findings outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 1 favoring disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178) (alteration and internal 2 citations omitted). 3 The second standard applies to discovery materials. “‘Private materials unearthed 4 during discovery’ are not part of the judicial record.” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 5 1180) (alteration omitted). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule 26(c) of the Federal 6 Rules of Civil Procedure applies to orders rendering this category of documents confidential. 7 See id.; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) 8 (“It is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order 9 to the contrary, presumptively public. Rule 26(c) authorizes a district court to override this 10 presumption where ‘good cause’ is shown.”) (citations omitted). 11 The good cause standard also applies to the sealed filing of documents attached to 12 non-dispositive motions because those documents are often “‘unrelated, or only tangentially 13 related, to the underlying cause of action.’” Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 14 (9th Cir. 2002); see Pintos, 504 F.3d at 802. Documents attached to dispositive motions such 15 as motions for summary judgment, however, are governed by the compelling reasons 16 standard. See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. 17 parties do not establish good cause or compelling reasons merely by stipulating that 18 documents may be filed under seal The 19 The parties may submit a revised proposed order that takes into account these 20 standards. The stipulation or motion seeking entry of the order should show good cause for 21 a confidentiality order governing discovery materials. The proposed order should also reflect 22 the fact that any party seeking to file documents under seal must show good cause for 23 documents attached to non-dispositive motions or compelling reasons for documents attached 24 to dispositive motions. Therefore, 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// -2- 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Stipulation (Dkt. # 46) without prejudice. 2 DATED this 9th day of September, 2009. 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 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?