Dastime Group Limited et al v. Vartanyan

Filing 16

ORDER regarding 5 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Responsive declarations are due no later than January 13, 2017. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on December 16, 2016. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KONSTANTIN GRIGORISHIN, et al.,

Case No. 16-cv-05274-JCS

Petitioners,
8
v.
9
10

ALEXANDER VARTANYAN,
Respondent.

ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 5

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Petitioners Konstantin Grigorishin and Dastime Group Limited brought this action seeking

13

to compel Respondent Alexander Vartanyan, a Russian national living in Switzerland, to

14

participate in ongoing arbitration between Petitioners and Moonvale Investments Limited

15

(“Moonvale”), which is not a party to the present action. The arbitrator entered a protective order

16

governing the arbitration. Goteiner Decl. (dkt. 5-1) ¶ 4 & Ex. A. Moonvale objected to disclosure

17

of certain material that Petitioners intended to include with their present Petition to Compel

18

Arbitration, and the arbitrator entered an order requiring a number of documents to be filed under

19

seal. Id. ¶ 5 & Ex. B. Based on the arbitrator‟s order, Petitioners now move to file under seal

20

those documents and virtually all portions of their Petition that discuss the underlying facts of the

21

case. See generally Admin. Mot. to File Under Seal (dkt. 5). “Petitioners take no position as to

22

whether disclosure of any of these materials would cause harm to Moonvale, Vartanyan, or any

23

third parties.” Id. at 1.

24

Courts have long recognized a strong presumption of public access to court records.

25

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing, e.g., Nixon v.

26

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597−98 & n.7 (1978)). A party seeking to overcome that

27

presumption generally must demonstrate “„compelling reasons‟” to file documents under seal

28

rather than in the public record. Id. at 1178−79 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

1

331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The Court is aware of no authority allowing parties to a

2

dispute to delegate the Court‟s role in safeguarding the public‟s access to records of judicial

3

proceedings to a private arbitrator. Indeed, the arbitrator herself recognized that that “[o]nce any

4

such proceeding is initiated in any court, any further disputes regarding the use and filing of

5

Confidential information in such proceeding shall be resolved by the court overseeing the

6

proceeding.” Goteiner Decl. Ex. A.

7

The Court recognizes that the competing obligations of public access and the arbitrator‟s

8

protective order place Petitioners in a difficult position. Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), which governs

9

the filing of documents designated as confidential by another party under a protective order,
provides a mechanism to balance those interests. The Court finds that procedure appropriate for

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the material at issue here, although additional time is warranted at this early stage of the case.

12

Accordingly, Petitioners are instructed to serve their administrative motion, this Order, and the

13

materials at issue on any person or entity that Petitioners believe can claim a confidentiality

14

interest in those materials no later than December 30, 2016. Any such party, including

15

Petitioners, may file a declaration no later than January 13, 2017 setting forth specific

16

compelling reasons why specific sensitive portions of the material should remain under seal. Such

17

requests must be narrowly tailored. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(b); see also In re Hewlett-Packard Co.

18

S’holder Derivative Litig., No. 3:12-cv-06003-CRB, ECF Doc. No. 411 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2015).

19

If no party files a responsive declaration setting forth compelling reasons for sealing, the Court

20

will deny Petitioners‟ administrative motion and order the Petition and its attachments filed in the

21

public record.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 16, 2016
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

26
27
28
2