Richard Dent, et al v. National Football League

Filing 213

ORDER DENYING 193 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL Signed by Judge William Alsup. (whalc5, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/17/2021)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

RICHARD DENT, J.D. HILL, JAMES
MCMAHON, JEREMY NEWBERRY,
RON PRITCHARD, RON STONE, KEITH
VAN HORNE, AND MARCELLUS
WILEY,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

v.

No. C 14-02324 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SEAL

NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE,
Defendant.

17
18

The public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents,

19

including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,

20

597 (1978). “This right is justified by the interest of citizens in keeping a watchful eye on the

21

workings of public agencies.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178

22

(9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).

23

“Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in

24

favor of access is the starting point. A party seeking a judicial record then bears the burden of

25

overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard. That is, the

26

party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings, that outweigh

27

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

28

interest in understanding the judicial process. In turn, the court must conscientiously balance

1

the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records

2

secret.” Id. at 1178–79 (cleaned up).

3

“What constitutes a compelling reason is best left to the sound discretion of the trial

4

court. Examples include when a court record might be used to gratify private spite or promote

5

public scandal, to circulate libelous statements, or as sources of business information that

6

might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC,

7

809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).

8

Under our local rules, requests to seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of

9

sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). “Reference
to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”

12
*

13

*

*

14

The NFL has filed an administrative motion to file under seal the entirety of many

15

documents it has filed in support of its motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs

16

designated the documents as “confidential” pursuant to the protective order in this case, and

17

because the documents contain plaintiffs’ personally identifiable health information.

18
19
20

The “confidential” designations are overbroad, and plaintiffs have filed no declarations in
support of keeping the documents secret from the public as required by our local rules.
Therefore, the motion is DENIED.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

Dated: December 17, 2021

25
26
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2