Xie v. De Young Properties, 5867 LP

Filing 73

ORDER DENYING Request to Seal and DIRECTING Defendant to File Redacted Document in Accordance With Local Rule 140 and This Order 72 , signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/29/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

AGNES XIE,

12
13
14

No. 1: 16-cv-01518-DAD-SKO
Plaintiff,

v.
DE YOUNG PROPERTIES 5418, LP,

15

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL AND
DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE
REDACTED DOCUMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LOCAL RULE 140 AND THIS ORDER

Defendant.
(Doc. No. 72)

16
17

Plaintiff Agnes Xie (“plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action, naming De Young

18

Properties 5418, LP (“defendant”) as the defendant, on October 7, 2016. (Doc. No. 1.) On June

19

26, 2018, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, including four exhibits, and noticed

20

the motion for hearing on August 7, 2018. (Doc. No. 70.) On June 28, 2018, after receiving an

21

email from plaintiff, the court issued a minute order directing the Clerk of the Court to

22

temporarily seal exhibit 4 to defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 70-4) and

23

directing defendant’s counsel to immediately file an appropriately redacted exhibit. (Doc. No.

24

71.) The exhibit included confidential information that should have been redacted pursuant to

25

Local Rule 140.

26

After the exhibit was temporarily sealed, defendant filed a notice of request to seal

27

documents. (Doc. No. 72.) The request states that though the documents have been redacted in

28

accordance with Local Rule 140, “[o]ut of an abundance of caution, and at the request of Plaintiff
1

1

Agnes Xie, Defendant seeks the additional protection afforded by filing under seal.” (Id. at 1.)

2
3

LEGAL STANDARD
All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News,

4

Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits

5

of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”).

6

Pursuant to Rule 5.2(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court “may order that a filing

7

be made under seal without redaction.” However, even if a court orders such a filing, it may

8

“later unseal the filing or order the person who made the filing to file a redacted version for the

9

public record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d). “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to

10

inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’”

11

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v.

12

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)).

13
14

Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors
Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010).

15

[J]udicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated]
differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those
who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to
dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that
“compelling reasons” support secrecy. A “good cause” showing
under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to
non-dispositive motions.

16
17
18
19

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citations omitted). The reason for the difference between the two

20

standards is that “[n]ondispositive motions are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the

21

underlying cause of action, and, as a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials

22

does not apply with equal force to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n,

23

605 F.3d 665 678 (9th Cir. 2010) (quotations omitted).

24
25
26
27
28

Under the “compelling reasons” standard applicable to dispositive motions such as the one
at issue here:
[T]he court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of
the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records
secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal
certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling
reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying
2

1
2
3
4

on hypothesis or conjecture.
Id. at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks, omissions, and citations omitted). 1 The party seeking
to seal a judicial record bears the burden of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at
1178; Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist when
such ‘court files might . . . 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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “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, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. “The
‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were
previously filed under seal or protective order.” Id. at 1178–79.

13

ANALYSIS

14
15
16
17
18

Here, defendant has filed a request to seal documents filed in support of its motion for
summary judgment (Doc. No. 70), which is more than tangentially related to the merits of the
case. For that reason, defendant is required to make a showing of “compelling reasons”
warranting the filing of the documents in question under seal. Defendant has not made the
required showing here.

19
20

Typically, “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure
and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

While courts frequently use the terms “dispositive” and “non-dispositive” motions in this
context, the Ninth Circuit has clarified that the “compelling reasons” standard applies whenever
the motion at issue “is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Center for Auto
Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). In some instances, the
proposed filing of documents under seal in connection with motions for preliminary injunction,
for sanctions, or in limine, though such motions are not dispositive, may be subject to the
“compelling reasons” test, predicated on the right of access and the need to “provide the public
with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better perception of its fairness.”
Id. at 1097–1101 (quoting Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 161 (3d
Cir. 1993)). Here, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is both dispositive and more than
tangentially related to the merits of the case.
3
1

1

improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,

2

circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting

3

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Here, defendant requests

4

that the court file all of the evidence submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment,

5

which totals nearly 500 pages, under seal. (Doc. No. 72.) Defendant states that “[g]iven the

6

combination of information contained on certain pages, however, Plaintiff’s privacy and identify

7

may well be at risk if they are left available to the public at large.” (Def.’s Req. to Seal at 2.) A

8

general fear of identity theft, as recounted by defendant, without more does not constitute

9

“articulable facts identifying the interests favoring continued secrecy . . . [or show] that these

10

specific interests overcame the presumption of access by outweighing the public interest in

11

understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1181 (internal citations omitted).

12

However, the court directs the parties to ensure that all documents filed on the public

13

docket conform to Local Rule 140, which requires redaction of financial account numbers (L.R.

14

140(a)(ii)), social security numbers (L.R. 140(a)(iii); and dates of birth (L.R. 140(a)(iv). Out of

15

an abundance of caution and to prevent the documents from becoming a “vehicle for improper

16

purposes,” the court will also authorize the redaction of plaintiff’s current and previous addresses.

17

See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (affirming magistrate judge’s ruling that home addresses and

18

social security numbers met the “compelling reason” standard). The parties are encouraged to

19

confer, but if plaintiff is unsatisfied by the extent of defendant’s redactions, she is free to file a

20

request to seal or redact documents pursuant to Local Rules 140–41.

21
22

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, defendant’s request to seal documents filed in support of their motion for

23

summary judgment (Doc. No. 72) is denied without prejudice. Defendant is directed to file a

24

redacted version of exhibit 4 to the motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 70) in accordance

25

with Local Rule 140 and this order.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated:

June 29, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4