Hatch v. Pearson Education Incorporated

Filing 96

ORDER denying without prejudice 65 Motion to Seal. FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice 84 MOTION to Seal. FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall refile their Motions to Seal with specific requests and properly redacted documents no later than December 9, 2022. Signed by Chief Judge G Murray Snow on 11/18/22. (MAP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Joshua Hatch,

No. CV-20-02223-PHX-GMS
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Pearson Education Incorporated,

13

ORDER

Defendant.

14
15
16

Pending before the Court are Defendant Pearson Education, Inc. (“Pearson”) and

17

Plaintiff Joshua Hatch’s Motions to Seal (Docs. 65 and 84, respectively). For the reasons

18

below, the motions are denied.

19

DISCUSSION

20

A party seeking to seal “motions for summary judgment and related attachments”

21

must overcome a “strong presumption of access to judicial records” and articulate

22

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that justify sealing the records.

23

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006). Potential

24

revelations of trade secrets, business strategies, and proprietary information can be

25

“compelling reasons” that justify motions to seal because such revelations “harm a

26

litigant’s competitive standing.” Foltz vs. State Farm Mut. Auto, Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122,

27

1135 (9th Cir. 2003); Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 593, 598 (1978).

28

“If the court agrees that the party’s compelling reasons outweigh the public’s right to

1

access, it must ‘articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypotheses or

2

conjecture.’” New Phase Dev. LLC v. Cook, No. 4:13-CV-00520-REB, 2016 WL 1755374,

3

at *3 (D. Idaho May 2, 2016) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79).

4

First, Defendants have asked the Court to seal hundreds of pages marked

5

“confidential.”

Defendant’s Motion must be denied because they have included

6

non-confidential, public documents along with the documents they wish to seal, and “it is

7

not possible to seal only certain documents filed together with public documents.” Doe v.

8

Ariz., No. CV-18-00384-PHX-GMS, at *1 (D. Ariz. Apr. 11, 2019). Further, on many

9

pages marked confidential (notably within deposition transcripts) Defendants have not

10

identified which portions of the documents should be redacted, nor have they provided

11

discrete justifications for why the Court should seal these documents. See Marsteller v.

12

MD Helicopter Inc., No. CV-14-01788-PHX-DLR, 2017 WL 5479927, at *3 (D. Ariz.

13

Nov. 15, 2017) (denying a motion to seal because of defendant’s failure to isolate portions

14

of documents that would cause harm with “clarity and specificity”). While Defendants

15

offer generalized reasons in support of their Motion, the Court will not independently

16

evaluate each document marked “confidential” and hypothesize about which generalized

17

reason supports sealing the document. (Doc. 65 at 2.) More specificity is required to

18

succeed on a motion to seal.

19

Next, Plaintiffs have asked the Court to seal various exhibits “for the reasons

20

outlined in Defendant’s Motion to Seal.” (Doc. 84 at 1.) Both parties agree that these

21

documents are confidential and should be sealed.

22

Nevertheless, for all the reasons Defendant’s Motion fails, so does Plaintiff’s: his

23

documents are not partially redacted, marked as confidential, or separated from public

24

documents. Additionally, as with its own Motion to Seal, Defendant has not offered

25

sufficiently specific reasons for sealing these documents. Accordingly, the Court denies

26

Defendant and Plaintiffs’ Motions to Seal without prejudice.

27
28

(See, e.g., Doc. 68-2 at 36, 50.)

CONCLUSION
The parties may refile their Motions with particularized requests and properly

-2-

1

redacted documents by December 9, 2022.

2

Accordingly,

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Seal Document re:

4
5
6
7
8
9

Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 65) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Seal (Doc. 84) is DENIED
without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall refile their Motions to Seal
with specific requests and properly redacted documents no later than December 9, 2022.
Dated this 18th day of November, 2022.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-