Ryan v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 36 Motion to Seal. If Defendants want the Court to consider Exhibit 3, they must resubmit the document for filing in the public record within 5 days of entry of this order, in accordance with LRCiv 5.6(e). Signed by Judge Douglas L Rayes on 2/6/24. (MAP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

John Ryan,

No. CV-22-00419-PHX-DLR
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al.,

13

ORDER

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff John Ryan brings this premises liability case against Defendants Costco

17

Wholesale Corporation and Costco Wholesale Membership Incorporated based on a slip

18

and fall that occurred in February 2020. Defendants have moved for summary judgment.

19

(Doc. 34.) As Exhibit 3 in support of that motion, Defendants submitted to the Court a disc

20

containing two angles of surveillance footage of Plaintiff’s fall, along with a media player

21

program with which to view the footage. Defendants move for leave to file Exhibit 3 under

22

seal. (Doc. 36.)

23

The public has a right to access judicial records. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v.

24

U.S. Dist. Court—N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 1999). The Court

25

therefore begins “with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records,” Foltz v.

26

State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003), and a party seeking

27

to overcome this presumption and file a record under seal generally must provide a

28

compelling reason for doing so, Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

1

1096 (9th Cir. 2016). The Ninth Circuit has carved out an exception to this general rule

2

“for sealed materials attached to a discovery motion unrelated to the merits of the case.”

3

Id. at 1097. A party seeking to seal such materials “need only satisfy the less exacting ‘good

4

cause’ standard.” Id. Although earlier decisions from the Ninth Circuit sometimes used the

5

words “dispositive” and “non-dispositive” to describe the dividing line between those

6

records governed by the compelling reasons standard and those governed by the good cause

7

standard, the Ninth Circuit has since clarified that “[t]he focus ... is on whether the motion

8

at issue is more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action.” Id. at 1099.

9

The exception to the ordinary compelling reasons standard applies only to records that are

10

unrelated or merely tangentially related to the merits of a case. Sealing documents

11

appended to a motion that is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case requires

12

a compelling justification. Defendants’ motion is governed by the more demanding

13

compelling reasons test because the exhibit they seek to seal is attached to a dispositive

14

motion and more than tangentially related to the merits. Defendants offer two reasons why

15

they believe Exhibit 3 should be sealed, neither of which the Court finds compelling.

16

First, Defendants note that they designated the surveillance footage as

17

“Confidential” pursuant to the protective order entered in this case. (Doc. 19.) “[B]ut the

18

fact that a document is treated as confidential pursuant to a protective order is not, without

19

more, a compelling reason for sealing that document once it is used to support a dispositive

20

motion.” Blum v. Banner Health, No. CV-20-00409-PHX-DLR, 2021 WL 5446460, at *1

21

(D. Ariz. Nov. 22, 2021).

22

Second, Defendants argue that the surveillance footage “is deserving of protection

23

from use or publication outside the scope of this lawsuit” because “Costco’s primary use

24

for its surveillance system is asset protection and theft deterrence[.]” (Doc. 36 at 1.) But it

25

is common knowledge that commercial retail businesses routinely use surveillance cameras

26

to protect their wares and deter theft. The unremarkable fact that Costco stores use

27

surveillance cameras is not a compelling reason to seal the footage. Accordingly,

28

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to seal (Doc. 36) is DENIED. If

-2-

1

Defendants want the Court to consider Exhibit 3, they must resubmit the document for

2

filing in the public record within 5 days of entry of this order, in accordance with LRCiv

3

5.6(e).

4

Dated this 6th day of February, 2024.

5
6
7
8
9

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

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

-3-