Federal Deposit Insurance Company v. Ching et al

Filing 125

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 02/02/16 ORDERING that the 122 Notice of Request to Seal Document is DENIED. If FDIC-R again files such an unsupported request to seal, the court cautions it will be required to show cause why it should not be subject to monetary sanctions. (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
COMPANY AS RECEIVER FOR BUTTE
COMMUNITY BANK,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

No. 2:13-cv-01710-KJM-EFB

ORDER

v.
ROBERT CHING, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20

“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public

21

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner

22

Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). While “the right to inspect and copy judicial records

23

is not absolute,” access in civil cases is properly denied for clearly justifiable reasons: to protect

24

against “‘gratif[ication of] private spite or promot[ion of] public scandal,’” or to preclude court

25

dockets from becoming “reservoirs of libelous statements” or “sources of business information

26

that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Id. at 598. As the Ninth Circuit instructs, a

27

“strong presumption in favor of access” to the record governs in a court of law unless the case or

28

a part of it qualifies for one of the relatively few exceptions “traditionally kept secret,” with
1

1

secrecy allowed for good reasons. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135

2

(9th Cir. 2003). “Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive

3

motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.”

4

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz,

5

331 F.3d at 1136). The compelling-reasons standard applies even if contents of the dispositive

6

motion or its attachments have previously been filed under seal or are covered by a generalized

7

protective order, including a discovery phase protective order. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136.

8

The Eastern District of California has adopted rules to clarify procedures for

9

parties’ compliance with the law reviewed above. Local Rule 141 provides that documents may

10

be sealed only by a written order of the court after a particularized request to seal has been made.

11

E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(a). A mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. Local Rule

12

141(b) expressly requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or

13

other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to

14

be permitted access to the document, and all relevant information.” The court’s own Standing

15

Order, available on its web page, and its Pretrial Scheduling Order issued in this case, ECF No.

16

13 at 5, emphasize the requirement that parties comply with the law and the rules in making any

17

sealing request, which they should do lightly and only rarely if at all. While the court should not

18

have to remind a party of the court’s orders setting out essential ground rules of a case, or set

19

forth its local rules in such detail, or review the controlling authority from which the rules derive,

20

it does so here in light of the completely unjustified request to seal presented by FDIC-R.

21

Specifically, FDIC-R has requested certain documents be sealed in connection

22

with its dispositive motion for summary judgment, to which the compelling-reasons

23

unquestionably standard applies. See Notice of Request to Seal, ECF No. 122; Mot. Summ. J.,

24

ECF No. 124. FDIC-R, however, has provided no reasons to seal that satisfy the law or the local

25

rules. All FDIC-R says is that (1) its request is made in compliance with a previously filed

26

protective order; (2) that the documents in question are “confidential by the FDIC as a matter of

27

policy”; and (3) under 12 C.F.R. § 309.6, certain documents shall not be publicly disclosed,

28

subject to several exceptions the FDIC-R does not identify.
2

1

The request to seal is DENIED. If FDIC-R again files such an unsupported

2

request to seal, the court cautions it will be required to show cause why it should not be subject to

3

monetary sanctions.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 2, 2016.

6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3