Sheikh v. Costco Wholesale Corporation et al

Filing 57

ORDER denying 48 Motion to Seal. If Costco wants the Court to consider Exhibits 3, 4, and 5, it must resubmit them 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

Iram Sheikh,

No. CV-22-00947-PHX-DLR
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al.,

13

ORDER

Defendants.

14
15
16

Plaintiff Iram Sheikh brings this premises liability case against Defendant Costco

17

Wholesale Corporation based on a slip and fall that occurred in January 2021. Costco has

18

moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 47.) As Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 in support of that motion,

19

Costco lodged with the Court, respectively, a disc containing surveillance footage of

20

Plaintiff’s fall, excerpts from Costco’s written policies and procedures, and documentation

21

concerning Costco’s safety inspections performed on the date of the incident. Costco

22

moves for leave to file these three exhibits under seal. (Doc. 48.)

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. Costco’s motion is governed by the more demanding

13

compelling reasons test because the exhibits it seeks to seal are attached to a dispositive

14

motion and more than tangentially related to the merits. Costco does not offer compelling

15

reasons for sealing these exhibits.

16

First, Costco notes that it designated these exhibits as “Confidential” pursuant to the

17

protective order entered in this case. (Doc. 13.) “[B]ut the fact that a document is treated

18

as confidential pursuant to a protective order is not, without more, a compelling reason for

19

sealing that document once it is used to support a dispositive motion.” Blum v. Banner

20

Health, No. CV-20-00409-PHX-DLR, 2021 WL 5446460, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 22, 2021).

21

Second, Costco argues that the surveillance footage “is deserving of protection from

22

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

23

surveillance system is asset protection and theft deterrence[.]” (Doc. 48 at 1.) But it is

24

common knowledge that commercial retail businesses routinely use surveillance cameras

25

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

26

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

27

Third, with respect to the policies and procedures and safety inspection

28

documentation, Costco merely notes that the information in these documents relates to its

-2-

1

internal commercial business operations. Costco fails to explain how it would be injured if

2

this information were publicly available. Accordingly,

3

IT IS ORDERED that Costco’s motion to seal (Doc. 48) is DENIED. If Costco

4

wants the Court to consider Exhibits 3, 4, and 5, it must resubmit them for filing in the

5

public record within 5 days of entry of this order, in accordance with LRCiv 5.6(e).

6

Dated this 6th day of February, 2024.

7
8
9
10
11

Douglas L. Rayes
United States District Judge

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

-3-