Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. v. Valentino et al

Filing 74

ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION BY DEFENDANTS CHU AND CORPORATE COUNSEL LAW GROUP TO FILE UNDER SEAL 73 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 5/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, et al.,

No. C 12-0334 SI

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION
BY DEFENDANTS CHU AND
CORPORATE COUNSEL LAW GROUP
TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Plaintiff,
11
v.
12
13
14
15

ABRAHAM VALENTINO; JOHN CHU;
CORPORATE COUNSEL LAW GROUP LLP;
NESZHAO CONSULTING COMPANY, LLC;
KEVIN NESBITT
Defendants.

/

16
17

On April 29, 2013, the Court denied the motion by defendants John Chu and Corporate Counsel

18

Law Group, LLC (“CCLG”) to file certain documents under seal, in connection with their forthcoming

19

motion for determination of good faith settlement. See Dkt. 72. Defendants have filed a renewed

20

motion to file documents under seal, which is now before the Court.

21

In its prior Order, the Court explained that where the motion to seal is connected to a dispositive

22

motion, the movant must show “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh

23

the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in

24

understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-

25

79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Where the motion to seal is connected

26

to a non-dispositive motion, the movant must show just cause, which requires a “particularized

27

showing” that “specific harm or prejudice will result if the information is disclosed.” Id. at 1179-80.

28

As did the original motion, defendants’ renewed motion fails even the lower “good cause”

1

standard, assuming – without deciding – that the underlying motion is non-dispositive. In its previous

2

order, the Court rejected defendants’ argument that the material should be because the parties agreed

3

among themselves to keep the settlement documentation confidential. Defendants now contend that it

4

was plaintiff Select Portfolio Services, Inc., which wanted to keep the settlement agreement confidential,

5

and that defendants only stipulated to including the confidentiality term in the agreement. Girade Decl.

6

¶ 5. Defendants argue that there are strong public policy reasons to promote the non-disclosure of

7

settlement agreements. In particular, defendants contend that making the terms of settlement public

8

would harm plaintiff’s “ability to negotiate other settlements in unrelated actions, by exposing its legal

9

strategy for evaluating the settlement value of claims.” Id.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

This generalized statement is insufficient; the same generic claim can be made about all

11

settlements. Defendants have not provided particularized facts – as to these parties, this case, or this

12

particular agreement – to show that any harm might result from disclosure. Instead, defendants have

13

asserted, on information and belief, that plaintiffs’ interests may be harmed.

14

Lacking a particularized showing, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’ administrative motion

15

to file under seal. Defendants may re-file the motion no later than May 31, 2013. If defendants

16

continue to assert plaintiffs’ interests, they should provide declarations and factual support from

17

plaintiffs explaining why the material should be sealed.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: May 23, 2013
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2