Alani v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
Filing
152
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Hon. William Alsup denying 126 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/5/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ABDUL ALANI,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
ALASKA AIRLINES INC., CORPORATE
DOES 1–20, and INDIVIDUAL DOES 21–40,
inclusive,
Defendants.
/
16
17
No. C 10-02766 WHA
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d), defendant Alaska Airlines has filed a motion for
18
leave to file under seal specified documents and/or portions of documents designated as
19
confidential by defendant. Rule 79-5(d) applies to documents designated as confidential by
20
another party. Here, defendant seeks an order sealing a document it designated as confidential.
21
Thus, Rule 79-5(a)–(c), (e) govern.
22
Defendant seeks leave to file the specified documents under seal in support of its reply to
23
the motion for summary judgment. The parties have agreed that the specified documents be filed
24
under seal for purposes of defendant’s reply to the motion for summary judgment. Under
25
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 2006), the court
26
held that a “strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive
27
pleadings” and “‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a
28
dispositive motion.” The burden of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard falls squarely on
1
the shoulders of the party “seeking to seal a judicial record.” Id. at 1179. Compelling reasons
2
must be shown regardless of any stipulation by the parties.
3
No compelling reason is shown. Defendant states in its motion for leave to file documents
4
under seal that pursuant to the Federal Aviation Administration’s Advisory Circular, records
5
submitted to the FAA for review pursuant to the voluntary disclosure reporting program are
6
protected from release to the public and should therefore be sealed (Br. 3). Because the specified
7
documents are such records the parties have agreed that they may be filed under seal. No
8
showing of “compelling reasons,” a substantially higher standard than “good cause,” is made.
9
Based on the foregoing reasons, the motion to seal is DENIED. This denial is without
prejudice to the filing of a renewed motion to seal that squarely addresses the “compelling
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
reasons” standard set forth in Kamakana. Such a motion must be filed by TUESDAY, DECEMBER
12
6, 2011.
13
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
16
Dated: December 5, 2011.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?