Jimenez, et al. v. Volvo Ce Rents, Inc., et al.

Filing 44

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 05/23/17 ORDERING that plaintiff's #39 Request to Seal the entire case is DENIED; however, #34 , #35 , #36 Minors Compromises are SEALED. The documents shall remain under seal until further order of this Court. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIA I. JIMENEZ, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

v.

No. 1:15-cv-01259-TLN-SAB

ORDER

TEICHERT, INC dba TEICHERT
CONSTRUCTION, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

This action involves a suit for wrongful death filed by Plaintiffs, decedent’s wife Maria

18
19

Jimenez, his two adult children Luis Andres Jimenez and Jose Luis Jimenez, and his four minor

20

children B.L.J., A.G.J., A.J.J., and N.H.J., by and through their guardian ad litem, Maria Jimenez

21

(collectively “Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs request to seal the entire case because the names of the

22

minor children and personal identifying information appear on multiple documents. (ECF No.

23

39.) In the alternative, Plaintiffs request to seal the three minors compromises (ECF Nos. 34, 35

24

& 36.) and attached exhibits because they contain personal identifying information.1 (ECF No.

25

39.) Defendants Teichert, Inc., A. Teichert and Sons, Blueline Rental, LLC, and Volvo Ce

26

Rentals, Inc., do not oppose the motion.
“Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records

27
28

1

Plaintiffs filed redacted versions of the minors compromises. (See ECF Nos. 40, 41 & 42.)

1

1

and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d

2

1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014) (citations omitted). “In keeping with the strong public policy favoring

3

access to court records, most judicial records may be sealed only if the court finds compelling

4

reasons.” Id. (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiffs seek to seal the entire case because of concerns

5

about the privacy of minor children. However, privacy alone is an insufficient reason to seal the

6

entire record. See Tischer Co. v. Robertson Stevens, Inc., No. C 06-2372 SBA, 2007 WL

7

3287846, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2007). Accordingly, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate compelling

8

reasons which would allow the Court to justifiably seal the entire record. The Court is

9

sympathetic to Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s plight if they must instead request to seal each document

10
11

individually, but that is not a justification for sealing the entire record.
The Court hereby DENIES Plaintiffs’ request to seal the entire case. However, good

12

cause appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS Minors Compromises (ECF Nos. 34, 35 & 36.) be

13

sealed. The documents shall remain under seal until further order of this Court.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 23, 2017

16
17
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2