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
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?