Blankenchip et al v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 79

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 8/16/2016 ORDERING that the parties' 76 request to seal is DENIED without prejudice. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12
13

RANDY BLANKENCHIP and SUSAN
BLANKENCHIP,
Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18

CIV. NO. 2:14-02309 WBS AC
ORDER RE: REQUEST TO SEAL

v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; CALWESTERN RECONVEYANCE, LLC;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants.

19
20
21

----oo0oo---Plaintiffs Randy and Susan Blankenchip initiated this

22

suit against defendants CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Citi”) and Cal-

23

Western Reconveyance, LLC alleging defendants breached a loan

24

modification agreement and wrongfully foreclosed on their home.

25

Presently before the court is plaintiffs’ and Citi’s stipulated

26

request to seal a number of documents in connection with Citi’s

27

motion for summary judgment.

28

The documents include the declarations of Robert R. Yap, Jeanine

(Req. to Seal (Docket No. 76).)

1

1

Cohoon, Henry J. Hymanson, and the respective exhibits, (Docket

2

Nos. 72-2, 72-3, 72-4, 72-5, 72-6, and 74-3), and the deposition

3

transcripts lodged with the court of Matthew Sinner, Jeanne

4

Pezold, Jeanine Cohoon.

5

(Id. at 2.)

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the

6

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public

7

access.

8

1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

9

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
The party must “articulate compelling

10

general history of access and the public policies favoring

11

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the

12

judicial process.”

13

on a request to seal, the court must balance the competing

14

interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records

15

secret.

16

Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted).

In ruling

Id. at 1179.
The parties contend the documents should be sealed

17

because “they partially contain information and material subject

18

to” the parties’ stipulated protective order signed by Magistrate

19

Judge Claire.

20

other justification for sealing what amounts to nearly all of the

21

declarations and exhibits relevant to Citi’s motion for summary

22

judgment and plaintiffs’ opposition.

23

pointed out that a confidentiality agreement between the parties

24

does not per se constitute a compelling reason to seal documents

25

that outweighs the interests of public disclosure and access.

26

See Oct. 8, 2014 Order at 2, Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging

27

Distrib., Civ. No. 2:13-1754; Sept. 3, 2015 Order at 3, Foster

28

Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London,

(Req. to Seal at 1-2.)

2

The parties provide no

This court has previously

1

Civ. No. 1:14-00953; Sept. 18, 2015 Order at 2, Rosales v. City

2

of Chico, Civ. No. 2:14-02152.

3

magistrate judge signed the stipulated protective order does not

4

change this principle.

5

The fact that the assigned

The parties have therefore failed to provide a

6

compelling reason to seal the summary judgment documents.

7

the important public policies favoring disclosure to the public

8

and the media, the request will accordingly be denied.

9

denial will be without prejudice to the parties refiling a more

10

tailored request to seal specific portions of the material or to

11

redact certain lines.

12

Given

The

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ request to

13

seal (Docket No. 76) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without

14

prejudice.

15

Dated:

August 16, 2016

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3