JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. v. Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc.

Filing 121

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/24/2016 DENYING 116 , 119 Requests to Seal Document(s) without prejudice. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-1397-JAM-KJN

ORDER

v.
SIERRA PACIFIC MORTGAGE
COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant.

16
17
18

Presently before the court are plaintiff JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s (“plaintiff”) and

19

defendant Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc.’s (“defendant”) requests to seal documents.

20

(ECF Nos. 116, 119.) For the reasons discussed below, the court denies both parties’ requests to

21

seal.

22

Local Rule 141(a) provides that “[d]ocuments may be sealed only upon written order of

23

the Court.” In general, there is a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records.

24

See Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “access to

25

judicial records is not absolute.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178

26

(9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, a party may request the court seal certain documents upon a

27

showing that such a request is warranted. In determining what standard to apply to requests to

28

seal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals distinguishes between non-dispositive and dispositive
1

1

motions. Id. at 1180.

2

A party requesting to seal a document filed with a non-dispositive motion, such as the

3

parties’ discovery motions here, needs to demonstrate “good cause.” Id. This requirement is

4

because the public’s interest in non-dispositive materials is weaker than its interest in dispositive

5

materials, which require the existence of “compelling reasons” before they may be sealed. Id.;

6

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). To satisfy the “good cause”

7

standard, “the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm

8

will result” if the request to seal is denied. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

9

307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific

10

examples or articulated reasoning” are insufficient. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966

11

F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d

12

Cir. 1986)).

13

Here, plaintiff asks the court to seal the following documents: (1) Plaintiff’s

14

Supplemental Declaration of William R. Betz, filed as “Exhibit B” to plaintiff’s appendix of

15

evidence in support of its motion to compel and in opposition to defendant’s motion to compel

16

(the “Appendix”) (ECF No. 115); (2) Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Declaration of William R.

17

Betz, filed as “Exhibit C” to the Appendix; (3) Federal National Mortgage Association’s (“Fannie

18

Mae”) Declaration of Joyce Amoo, filed as “Exhibit D” to the Appendix; (4) Deposition

19

Transcript of William R. Betz dated November 20, 2015, filed as “Exhibit E” to the Appendix;

20

(5) the transcript of the July 16, 2015 hearing before the undersigned, filed as “Exhibit K” to the

21

Appendix and located in the docket at ECF No. 72; (6) the transcript of the December 10, 2015

22

hearing before the undersigned, filed as “Exhibit O” to the Appendix and located in the docket at

23

ECF No. 93; and (7) the transcript of the January 7, 2016 hearing before the undersigned, filed as

24

“Exhibit Q” to the Appendix and located in the docket at ECF No. 109. (ECF No. 116.) Similar

25

to plaintiff, defendant also requests the court to seal Plaintiff’s Supplemental Declaration of

26

William R. Betz. (ECF No. 119.) Defendant requests further that the court seal the parties’ joint

27

statement filed in connection with defendant’s pending motion to compel. (Id.)

28

////
2

1

With respect to all of the documents the parties request the court to seal, both parties

2

assert that sealing is warranted because plaintiff has designated the documents as “confidential”

3

pursuant to the Stipulated Confidentiality Protective Order filed at ECF No. 40 and because the

4

documents contain confidential information regarding the contents of the October 2013 settlement

5

agreements between plaintiff, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac that are the subject of defendant’s

6

pending motion to compel. (ECF No. 116 at 2-4; ECF No. 119 at 2.) Specific to its request,

7

plaintiff also argues, without citing any supporting authority, that such documents reveal

8

confidential information regarding Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage

9

Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) and that, as third parties not participating in this litigation, these

10

agencies have a right to not have that information included in the public record. (ECF No. 116 at

11

2-4.) Finally, plaintiff contends, without further elaboration, that the information contained in the

12

documents it requests to seal “could harm either [plaintiff] or the Agencies in future business

13

dealings as [they] involve[ ] confidential, negotiated terms.” (Id.)

14

After considering the parties arguments in support of sealing and after reviewing the

15

documents the parties request to seal, the court finds that the parties’ requests do not meet the

16

“good cause” requirement. First, neither party provides any specific examples of harm that will

17

result if the contents of the documents they request to seal are included in the publically available

18

court record. See Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd, 307 F.3d at 1210-11; Beckman Indus., Inc, 966

19

F.2d at 476. At most, the parties assert that disclosure will cause some sort of vague harm to

20

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to plaintiff’s future dealings with those agencies without

21

providing any indication to why such harm will occur. Furthermore, a review of the documents

22

the parties seek to seal—which include multiple transcripts of court hearings in this matter that

23

have been a part of the public record for months prior to the parties’ requests—strongly indicates

24

that these documents do not contain the sort of confidential information that would warrant their

25

sealing. Indeed, many of the documents the parties seek to seal discuss what is not in the

26

settlement agreements, rather than the terms of those agreements on which the parties rely to

27

support their claims of confidentiality. Furthermore, to the extent the documents do provide

28

information regarding the settlement agreements, that discussion is minimal and general in nature,
3

1

appearing to reveal none of the specifics that would support sealing the entirety of the documents

2

as the parties request.

3

In short, the court finds that neither party, nor any third party, will suffer undue prejudice

4

or harm as a result of the documents the parties seek to seal being filed in the public record.

5

Accordingly, the court denies both parties’ requests to seal without prejudice to a renewed request

6

that makes a more particularized showing as to why good cause exists to have the requested

7

documents filed under seal.

8
9
10
11

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF
No. 116) and defendant’s motion to seal (ECF No. 119) are DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 24, 2016

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4