Westfall v. Ball Metal Beverage Container Corporation

Filing 37

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 08/10/17 ORDERING that the 35 Request to Seal Document is DENIED without prejudice to refiling of a properly supported request by Ball. If any party to this action 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

ROBERT WESTFALL, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

No. 2:16-cv-02632-KJM-GGH

ORDER
v.
BALL METAL BEVERAGE
CONTAINER COPRPORATION, a
Colorado Corporation, and Does 1-20
inclusive.
Defendants.

18
19
20

Plaintiff requests to seal a document merely because it purportedly contains

21

confidential information, is subject to a discovery protective order on file in this case, and

22

because plaintiff “understands” defendant’s position regarding confidentiality. ECF No. 35.

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

dockets from becoming “reservoirs of libelous statements,” or “sources of business information
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

Order, available on its web page, and its Pretrial Scheduling Order issued in this case, ECF

19

No. 15, emphasize the requirement that parties comply with the law and the rules in making any

20

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

21

have to remind a party of its orders setting out essential ground rules of a case, or set forth its

22

local rules in such detail, or review the controlling authority from which the rules derive, it does

23

so here in light of the completely unjustified request to seal presented by plaintiff. Moreover, the

24

court’s standing order requires that the proponent of sealing seek an order from the court. See

25

ECF No. 4-1. Here, the proponent is defendant Bell.

26
27

The request to seal is DENIED without prejudice to refiling of a properly
supported request by Ball. If any party to this action again files such an unsupported request to

28
2

1

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

2

sanctions.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

This resolves ECF No. 35.

5

DATED: August 10, 2017.

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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