Neasham & Kramer LLP v. Neff et al

Filing 53

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/7/2022 GRANTING in PART and DENYING in PART 51 Request to seal. The redacted versions of the Motion, Declaration, Statement of Undisputed Facts, and exhibits attached to 48 the Notice of Errata shall remain on the Court's docket. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

NEASHAM & KRAMER, LLP, a
California Limited Liability Partnership,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

No. 2:19-cv-00565-MCE-KJN

ORDER
v.
STEPHEN NEFF, an individual,
Defendant.

17
18

On November 8, 2021, Defendant Stephen Neff (“Defendant”) filed redacted

19

versions of the following documents: (1) Defendant’s Motion for Partial Summary

20

Judgment (“Motion”), (2) Defendant’s Declaration in Support of Defendant’s Motion for

21

Partial Summary Judgment (“Declaration”), and (3) Defendant’s Statement of

22

Undisputed Facts Concerning Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Statement

23

of Undisputed Facts”).1 ECF Nos. 40–42. Subsequently, on December 2, 2021,

24

Defendant filed a Notice of Errata, attaching 104 pages of redacted exhibits in support of

25

its Motion. ECF No. 48. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s third Notice of

26
27
28

1
According to Defendant, “[o]nly information specifically relating to ‘Company X,’ the lawsuit
between [Defendant] and ‘Company X,’ and the confidential settlement agreement was redacted; all other
information pertaining to the present dispute between [Defendant] and [Plaintiff] is part of the public
record.” ECF No. 51, at 3 ¶¶ 6–8.

1

1

Request to Seal, which seeks an order to file unredacted versions of the aforementioned

2

documents in their entirety.2 ECF No. 51. Citing to a stipulated protective order issued

3

by the assigned magistrate judge on February 16, 2021, Defendant contends that the

4

above documents contain “confidential” information relating to a confidential settlement

5

agreement between the parties and a third party in a related action.3 Id. at 2 ¶ 2; see

6

generally ECF No. 31. Defendant submitted for in camera consideration a third Request

7

to Seal Documents, a proposed sealing order, and the documents sought to be sealed.

8

Plaintiff Neasham & Kramer LLP (“Plaintiff”) opposes Defendant’s request.4 ECF No. 52.

9

As previously explained by the Court, “[the Ninth Circuit] acknowledged explicitly

10

. . . that the strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive

11

pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments.”

12

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal

13

citations omitted). “Thus, ‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to seal judicial records

14

attached to a dispositive motion.” Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

15

331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). The party seeking to seal documents attached to

16

dispositive motions bears the burden of “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by

17

specific factual findings.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citations omitted). “The

18

‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its

19

attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order.” Id. at 1179.

20
21

Once again, the Court does not find compelling reasons exist for sealing the
aforementioned documents in their entirety. While the Court understands the need to

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
The Court previously denied without prejudice Defendant’s first and second Requests to Seal the
same documents, which Defendant also sought to seal in their entirety. See ECF Nos. 44, 50.

The stipulated protective order provides that, “[u]nless otherwise permitted by statute, rule or
prior court order, all Confidential Information that is filed with the court must be filed under seal or
sufficiently redacted to maintain the confidentiality of the document and must be filed in accordance with
the United States District Court, Eastern District of California Rules Governing Sealing and Redacting
Court Records.” ECF No. 31, at 4 ¶ 7 (emphasis added).
3

4
Plaintiff’s opposition mostly focuses on the timeliness of Defendant’s filing of exhibits in support
of the Motion through the Notice of Errata. See generally ECF No. 52. The Court will address such
objections when reviewing the Motion on the merits.

2

1

protect the identity of Company X, the details pertaining to the lawsuit between

2

Defendant and Company X, and the terms of the confidential settlement agreement,

3

Defendant still has not articulated why all the above documentation must be sealed in its

4

entirety when redacting such information on the public versions is sufficient. Defendant

5

asserts that the information regarding Company X is “background information to the

6

Court, but are not necessary for the public to understand and review the judicial process

7

in the present case.” ECF No. 51, at 4–5 ¶ 11. In light of this, it appears that redaction

8

rather than wholesale sealing will accomplish the goal of keeping the confidential

9

information private while preserving the interest in public access to judicial records and

10
11

documents.
Accordingly, Defendant’s request to seal, ECF No. 51, is GRANTED in part and

12

DENIED in part. The redacted versions of the Motion, Declaration, Statement of

13

Undisputed Facts, and exhibits attached to the Notice of Errata shall remain on the

14

Court’s docket.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 7, 2022

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