Morse v. San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District et al

Filing 71

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 62 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

DAVID MORSE,

12
13

Case No.: 12-cv-5289 JSC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15
16
17

SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID
TRANSIT DISTRICT (BART), et al.,
Defendants.

18
19
20
21

Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal. (Dkt. No.
62.) For the reasons stated below, the motion is DENIED.
LEGAL STANDARD

22

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

23

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435

24

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978); see also Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Comp., 331 F.3d

25

1124, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003) (“In this circuit, we start with a strong presumption in favor of access to

26

court records.) The right is justified by the interest of citizens in “keep[ing] a watchful eye on the

27

workings of public agencies.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. The right, however, “is not absolute and can

28

be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons for doing so.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135; see, e.g.

1

Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989). “A narrow range of

2

documents is not subject to the right of public access at all because the records have traditionally been

3

kept secret for important policy reasons.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honoloulu, 447 F.3d

4

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted); see, e.g., Times Mirror Co., 873 F.2d at 1219

5

(grand jury transcripts and warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation not subject

6

to right of public access).

7

The right of public access to judicial records “applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including

Circuit “adopted this principle of disclosure because the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether

10

by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the public’s understanding of

11
Northern District of California

motions for summary judgment and related attachments.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. The Ninth

9

United States District Court

8

the judicial process and of significant public events.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks

12

omitted). Thus, “[a] party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this

13

strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. at 1178-79. The reasons must

14

“outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 1179

15

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Such compelling reasons include “the use of

16

records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

17

secrets.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The mere fact that the

18

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

19

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id.

20

The Court must “conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests” of the public and those of

21

the party seeking to keep certain judicial records secret. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. In considering

22

these interests, the court must “base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual

23

basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d

24

1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (internal citations omitted).

25
26

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s motion seeks to seal several exhibits to his opposition to Defendants’ motion for

27

summary judgment, yet Plaintiff provides no reason for sealing these exhibits other than that the

28

parties designated the exhibits as confidential under the protective order. A party’s bare assertion that

2

1

the documents are confidential does not meet the “compelling reasons” standard outlined above. Nor

2

does it meet the requirements of the Local Rules. See N.D. Cal. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference to a

3

stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not

4

sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

5

Further, while Plaintiff seeks to file some of the exhibits under seal based on Defendants’

6

designation of those documents as confidential, Defendants have not filed a declaration establishing

7

that all the materials are sealable as required by Local Rule 79-5(e)(1).
CONCLUSION

8
9

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s administrative motion is DENIED. Pursuant to the

Northern District of California

Local Rules, Plaintiff shall file an unredacted version of the documents filed under seal no earlier than

11
United States District Court

10

four days from the date of this Order. See id. at 79-5(e)(2).

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: February 7, 2014
_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3