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