The National Grange of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry v. California State Grange
Filing
173
ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/24/2017 DENYING 167 Plaintiff's Request to Seal. (Kirksey Smith, K)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
----oo0oo----
11
12
13
THE NATIONAL GRANGE OF THE
ORDER OF PATRONS OF
HUSBANDARY,
16
17
18
ORDER RE: REQUEST TO SEAL
Plaintiff,
14
15
CIV. NO. 2:14-676 WBS DB
v.
CALIFORNIA GUILD, formerly
doing business as “California
State Grange,”
Defendant.
19
20
21
----oo0oo---On September 12, 2016, the court issued an order
22
requiring defendant, the California Guild, to pay plaintiff, the
23
National Grange, $144,715.70 in attorneys’ fees.
24
Order at 23 (Docket No. 154).)
25
to add Robert McFarland, president of defendant, as a judgment
26
debtor to the court’s fees order.
27
the 17 exhibits plaintiff cites in support of its motion
28
“CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL--ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” pursuant to
(Sept. 12, 2016
Plaintiff seeks to file a motion
1
Defendant has designated 15 of
1
a stipulated protective order signed by the magistrate judge in
2
this case.
3
agreed to file its motion to add judgment debtor, a separate
4
motion to remove defendant’s designations, and memoranda and
5
exhibits supporting the two motions, under seal.
6
with defendant’s support, requests the court to enter an order
7
allowing it to file the aforementioned documents under seal.
8
While the protective order in this case allows the
9
Plaintiff disputes defendant’s designations, but has
Plaintiff now,
parties to designate documents as confidential, designating a
10
document confidential does not entitle the parties to file the
11
document under seal.
12
requests to seal must be made even if an existing protective
13
order . . . permits the sealing of the document.” (emphasis
14
added)).
15
provision, which states that confidentiality designations remain
16
in effect while they are being challenged, entitle the parties to
17
play out their designation challenges via sealed documents.
18
id.
19
“written order of the Court” permitting the sealing after they
20
have made “the showing required by applicable law.”
21
rule applies even where a prior protective order permits the
22
designation of documents as confidential.
23
See E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(a) (“[S]pecific
Neither does the protective order’s ‘challenges’
See
To file any document under seal, the parties must obtain
Id.
That
See id.
The Ninth Circuit has held that a party seeking to seal
24
a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming “a strong
25
presumption in favor of [public] access.”
26
County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
27
party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific
28
factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and
2
Kamakana v. City &
The
1
the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public
2
interest in understanding the judicial process.”
3
(citation omitted).
4
“balance[s] the competing interests of the public and the party
5
who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.”
6
Id. at 1178-79
In deciding a motion to seal, the court
Id. at 1179.
Neither plaintiff nor defendant has offered any
7
“compelling reasons” for sealing the documents at issue here.
8
The exhibits at issue are a deposition transcript, meeting
9
minutes, emails, budget spreadsheets, tax returns, bank
10
statements, and photocopies of checks.
Save for intermittent
11
mentions of private bank account numbers, which the parties may
12
redact pursuant to Local Rule 140(a)(ii), the exhibits do not
13
appear to contain any sensitive business information.
14
defendant designated the exhibits confidential pursuant to a
15
stipulated protective order is not itself a compelling reason to
16
seal the exhibits.
17
Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, No. CIV. 1:14-00953 WBS, 2015 WL
18
5608241, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2015) (“[A] confidentiality
19
agreement between the parties does not per se constitute a
20
compelling reason to seal documents outweighing the interests of
21
public disclosure and access.
22
magistrate judge signed the stipulated protective order does not
23
change this principle.”); Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging
24
Distribution, No. CV 2:13-1754 WBS CKD, 2016 WL 1090550, at *2
25
(E.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2016) (same).
That
See Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain
The fact that the assigned
26
The court is also unable to find anything in
27
plaintiff’s motions or their accompanying memoranda that appear
28
to implicate any “compelling” privacy concerns.
3
1
Because the parties have not offered any “compelling
2
reasons” to grant plaintiff’s request to seal, the court will
3
deny plaintiff’s request.
4
disclosure of bank account numbers, plaintiff may resubmit its
5
request specifically asking that it be allowed to redact such
6
information from its exhibits.
7
If the parties are concerned about
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to
8
seal be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
9
Dated:
January 24, 2017
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?