Rupa Marya v. Warner Chappell Music Inc

Filing 185

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS Order re: (1) Joint Application to File Under Seal [Unredacted] Exhibits of Joint Evidentiary Appendix; (2) Notice of Manual Filing [Dkt. 167] by Judge George H. King: The Parties Application is hereby STRICKEN. The Parties SHALL within 14 days hereofeither submit a new Application identifying the compelling reasons for why we should seal thesedocuments or else file the documents publically. In the Application, the Parties must make a specificfactual showing as to their claimed compelling reasons for seeking to seal each document, or portionthereof, and include discussion of all relevant factors. If the Parties intend for an entire exhibit to besealed, they must make a showing commensurate with the broad scope of such a request. Failure toresubmit these documents will be deemed consent to the striking of any references to the documentsfrom the Parties Joint Brief and Statement of Uncontroverted Facts. The Notice and the submitted exhibits are herebySTRICKEN. The Parties SHALL within 14 days resubmit all documents in a manner that complieswith the Local Rules and otherwise clearly identifies the exhibits and the reason for their manual filing. (See document for further details) (bp)

E-FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-4460 GHK (MRWx)

Title

Rupa Marya, et al. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.

Presiding: The Honorable

Date

December 4, 2014

GEORGE H. KING, CHIEF U. S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Beatrice Herrera

N/A

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order re: (1) Joint Application to File Under Seal [Unredacted]
Exhibits of Joint Evidentiary Appendix; (2) Notice of Manual Filing [Dkt. 167]

On November 26, 2014, the Parties filed the above-captioned Application, seeking to file
exhibits under seal in connection with the pending Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment set for
hearing on January 26, 2015. [Dkt. 179.] The Parties failed to address the relevant legal standard in
their Application. They mistakenly assumed that the “good cause” standard used for filing documents
under seal in discovery matters applies to filing documents under seal in connection with a summary
judgment motion. In a dispositive motion, the party seeking to seal the judicial record bears the burden
of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
1178 (9th Cir. 2006). This is a higher standard than the good cause standard. Id., 447 F.3d at 1180.
“The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or
exposure to further litigation will not, without more,” satisfy the compelling reason standard. Id. at
1179. Rather, the party must show that the court records could “become a vehicle for improper
purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous
statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. While the existence of a protective order rebuts the
presumption of public access under the good cause standard, it is not adequate, by itself, to rebut the
presumption under the more demanding compelling reasons standard. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003).
The Parties’ Application is hereby STRICKEN. The Parties SHALL within 14 days hereof
either submit a new Application identifying the compelling reasons for why we should seal these
documents or else file the documents publically. In the Application, the Parties must make a specific
factual showing as to their claimed compelling reasons for seeking to seal each document, or portion
thereof, and include discussion of all relevant factors. If the Parties intend for an entire exhibit to be
sealed, they must make a showing commensurate with the broad scope of such a request. Failure to
resubmit these documents will be deemed consent to the striking of any references to the documents
from the Parties’ Joint Brief and Statement of Uncontroverted Facts.
The Parties’ manual submission of the exhibits to be sealed was also deficient. On November
25, 2014, the Parties filed a Notice of Manual Filing indicating that a large number of exhibits would be
manually filed. [Dkt. 167.] Some of these exhibits were to be filed under seal; some were not. The
Parties then submitted all of these exhibits in bulk without caption pages identifying the exhibit number
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

E-FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 13-4460 GHK (MRWx)

Date

Title

December 4, 2014

Rupa Marya, et al. v. Warner/Chappell Music, Inc.

or volume of the joint appendix to which each exhibit belongs, and without differentiating in any clear
way between those exhibits to be filed under seal and those being manually filed for other reasons.
Aside from simply being confusing, the submission violates at least Local Rule 79-5.1 (requiring that all
documents to be sealed must be placed in separate envelopes with the title page of each document on the
front of the envelope) and Rule 11-4.1.2 (explaining that copies of manually filed documents should be
blue-backed and the originals should not be). The Notice and the submitted exhibits are hereby
STRICKEN. The Parties SHALL within 14 days resubmit all documents in a manner that complies
with the Local Rules and otherwise clearly identifies the exhibits and the reason for their manual filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

-Initials of Deputy Clerk

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

--

Bea

Page 2 of 2