Sjostrom et al v. Kraatz et al
Filing
12
ORDER Denying Amended Motion to Seal Case 10 . The Case Management Conference Scheduled for 7/28/16 is vacated. The Plaintiffs shall file a status report or dismissal within 30 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 7/21/2016. (dmrlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/21/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
JOEL SJOSTROM, et al.,
Case No. 16-cv-01381-DMR
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
ORDER DENYING AMENDED
MOTION TO SEAL THE COMPLAINT
9
10
HARRY R KRAATZ, et al.,
Re: Dkt. No. 10
Defendants.
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
On March 21, 2016, Plaintiffs Joel Sjostrom and Aegis Retail One, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) filed
12
13
a complaint alleging claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional interference with
14
prospective economic relations, violation of federal securities law, violations of the Racketeering
15
and Corrupt Organizations Act, and unfair competition against Defendants Harry Kraatz and
16
HKSB, LLC. Complaint [Docket No. 1]. On June 21, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to seal the
17
complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs assert that the parties have reached a full settlement, and that
18
upon full review of the facts, Plaintiffs now believe that they do not have a sufficient basis to
19
litigate the case. Plaintiffs therefore seek to seal the complaint because the allegations made
20
therein could harm Kraatz’s reputation. Amended Motion to Seal (“Mot.”) [Docket No. 10]. The
21
court has determined that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant
22
to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The motion hearing set for July 28, 2016 is hereby vacated.
23
I.
24
LEGAL STANDARD
The public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and court records are normally
25
open to the public. Nixon v. Warner Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (“It is clear that
26
the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and
27
documents, including judicial records and documents” (citations omitted)). The Ninth Circuit
28
“start[s] with a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut.
1
Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Two standards govern motions to seal court
2
documents. A “compelling reasons” standard applies to dispositive motions, such as motions for
3
summary judgment. A “good cause” standard applies to non-dispositive motions, such as
4
discovery motions. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006).
5
Motions that are technically non-dispositive may still require the party to meet the “compelling
6
reasons” standard when the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Ctr.
7
for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016).
To meet the “good cause standard,” “a ‘particularized showing’ under the . . . standard of
8
9
Rule 26(c) will ‘suffice.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).
Compelling reasons generally exist when the “‘files might have become a vehicle for improper
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate
12
libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598), or where court
13
files may serve “as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive
14
standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S at 598-99.
Under the local rules in this district, sealing orders “may issue only upon a request that
15
16
establishes that the [information] is privileged or protectable as trade secret or otherwise entitled to
17
protection under the law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). All requests to file under seal must be “narrowly
18
tailored,” such that only sealable information is sought to be redacted from public access. Id.
19
II.
ANALYSIS
Plaintiffs seek to seal the complaint in its entirety. Because the complaint is more than
20
21
tangentially related to the merits of the case, the compelling reasons standard governs the sealing
22
request. Schwartz v. Cook, No. 5:15-CV-03347-BLF, 2016 WL 1301186, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 4,
23
2016) (compelling reasons standard governed motion to seal portions of the complaint); In re
24
NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litig., No. 06–cv–06110–SBA, 2008 WL 1859067, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
25
Apr. 23, 2008) (“While a complaint is not, per se, the actual pleading by which a suit may be
26
disposed of, it is the root, the foundation, the basis by which a suit arises and must be disposed
27
of.”).
28
2
1
Plaintiffs argue that the complaint should be sealed because the fraud-related allegations in
2
the complaint could harm the reputation and livelihood of Kraatz, a re-organization specialist who
3
assists struggling companies and whose business involves reviewing the confidential information
4
of clients during restructuring. Mot. at 4. Plaintiffs contend that allowing the complaint to remain
5
public “would not only be an embarrassment to Mr. Kraatz but could be catastrophic as current
6
and potential clients will distance themselves from Mr. Kraatz out of caution, if not a belief that
7
Mr. Kraatz has ulterior motives.” Id. at 4-5. Similarly, Plaintiff Sjostrom’s declaration in support
8
of the motion to seal states: “Due to the nature of the claims alleged in the Complaint, I believe
9
harm could occur that may substantially injure defendant Harry Kraatz’s reputation that assists
struggling businesses to restructure and attract new investors.” Declaration of Joel Sjostrom
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
[Docket No. 10-1] at ¶ 5.
However the Ninth Circuit has made clear that “[t]he mere fact that the production of
12
13
records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will
14
not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. When
15
sealing documents under the compelling reason standard, a “district court must base its decision
16
on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis
17
or conjecture.” Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). In the absence of
18
specifically articulated reasons, “meaningful appellate review is impossible.” Id. at 1435.
19
Although Plaintiffs nakedly assert that the “[c]omplaint has inadvertently become a vehicle for
20
improper purposes that could promote a public scandal or circulate libelous statements,” they do
21
not provide any factual basis supporting this claim. Mot. at 5.
22
In short, Plaintiffs have failed to provide a compelling reason to seal the complaint
23
sufficient to overcome the public’s interest in disclosure. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ request to seal
24
the entire complaint is not narrowly tailored and fails to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(b).
25
Therefore, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the complaint is denied.
26
//
27
//
28
//
3
1
2
III.
SETTLEMENT OF THE CASE
In their motion, Plaintiffs also state that “the parties have come to a settlement agreement
and that Plaintiffs have dismissed the Complaint.” Mot. at 4. However, no notice of settlement or
3
dismissal has been filed in this case. Therefore, Plaintiffs shall file a status report or dismissal
4
within 30 days from the date of this Order.
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
Dated: July 21, 2016
7
8
______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?