Stiles v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, et al

Filing 478

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/15/2020 DENYING 474 Request to Seal Document(s) without prejudice to a renewed motion containing a more developed explanation of defendant's need for sealing. Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment may remain on the public docket as is, with placeholder exhibits attached. 473 .(Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SHARIDAN STILES, an individual,
STILES 4 U, INC, a California
Corporation,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,

No. 2:14-cv-02234--KJM-DMC

ORDER

v.
WAL-MART STORES, Inc., AMERICAN
INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, Inc.,
and DOES 1-100,
Defendants.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Defendant American International Industries (“AI”) requests the court seal
Exhibits 33, 63, 64 and 65 and excerpts of the deposition of Sharidan Stiles filed in support of
AI’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Not. Req. to Seal, ECF No. 475. For the following
reasons, the court DENIES defendant’s request.
“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public
records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner
Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). While “the right to inspect and copy judicial records
is not absolute,” access in civil cases is properly denied for clearly justifiable reasons: to protect
against “‘gratif[ication of] private spite or promot[ion of] public scandal,’” or to preclude court

28
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

Defendant relies exclusively on the fact the documents in question were identified

13

as confidential based on the parties’ discovery protective order, which was approved by the court.

14

ECF No. 178. As explained above, without more, this is insufficient for the court even to find

15

good cause to seal the documents, especially given the “strong presumption in favor of access” to

16

the record. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. Accordingly, the request to redact and seal documents is

17

hereby DENIED without prejudice to a renewed motion containing a more developed explanation

18

of defendant’s need for sealing.

19
20

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment may remain on the public docket
as is, with placeholder exhibits attached. ECF No. 473.

21

This order resolves ECF No. 474.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED: June 15, 2020.

24
25
26
27
28
2