Karkanen v. Family Court Services of Contra Costa County et al

Filing 13

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 11 MOTION TO SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KRISTINA MARIE KARKANEN, Plaintiff, 8 v. 9 10 11 Case No. 17-cv-00999-HSG ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL Re: Dkt. No. 11 FAMILY COURT SERVICES OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California Defendants. 12 13 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to seal the complaint. Dkt. No. 11 (“Mot.”). 14 The motion states that the “[t]he complaint contains confidential information.” Id. at 1. Similarly, 15 Plaintiff’s declaration in support of the motion asserts that the complaint should “be placed under 16 seal due to the nature of sensitive and confidential information.” Dkt. No. 12 (“Pl.’s Decl.”). 17 Plaintiff’s declaration also contends that the exhibits to the complaint contain confidential 18 information. Id. The Court DENIES the motion. 19 I. LEGAL STANDARD 20 Courts generally apply a “compelling reasons” standard when considering motions to seal 21 documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). “This standard 22 derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and documents, including 23 judicial records and documents.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 24 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). “[A] strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” 25 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). To overcome this 26 strong presumption, the moving party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific 27 factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 28 disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 1 (citations, internal quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “In general, compelling reasons 2 sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist 3 when such court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of 4 records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release 5 trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court must 6 “balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial 7 records secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial 8 records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its 9 ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (citations, brackets, and internal 10 quotation marks omitted). Civil Local Rule 79-5 supplements the “compelling reasons” standard. The party seeking United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 to file under seal must “establish[ ] that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, 13 protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law. . . . The request 14 must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material . . . .” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 15 Finally, records attached to motions that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a 16 case” are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 17 LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, parties moving to seal such records must 18 meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 19 1097. The “good cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or 20 harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 21 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see 22 also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 23 24 II. DISCUSSION In considering Plaintiff’s motion to seal the complaint, the Court applies the “compelling 25 reasons” standard. While the Ninth Circuit appears not to have explicitly announced what 26 standard applies to the sealing of a complaint, many courts in this district have found that the 27 compelling reasons standard applies. See Towers v. Iger, No. 15-cv-04609-BLF, 2016 WL 28 6427898, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2016); Ojmar US, LLC v. Sec. People, Inc., No. 16-cv-049482 1 HSG, 2016 WL 6091543, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2016); Sjostrom v. Kraatz, No. 16-cv-01381- 2 DMR, 2016 WL 3940886, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2016); In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13- 3 MD-02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5366963, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013); Dunbar v. Google, Inc., 4 No. 12-CV-003305-LHK, 2013 WL 4428853, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2013); In re NVIDIA 5 Corp. Derivative Litig., 06-cv-06110-SBA, 2008 WL 1859067, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2008). 6 This makes sense because the complaint is more than “tangentially related to the merits of the 7 case.” See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101; see also Sjostrom, 2016 WL 3940886, at *2 8 (“Because the complaint is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the compelling 9 reasons standard governs the sealing request.”). 10 Here, Plaintiff asserts, without any factual support, that the complaint is confidential. See United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Mot.; Pl’s Decl. This clearly falls short of the Ninth Circuit’s requirement that the movant 12 “articulate compelling reasons supported specific factual findings.” See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 13 1178 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); see also Tdn Money Sys., Inc. v. Glob. 14 Cash Access, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-02197-JCM-NJK, 2016 WL 4708466, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 7, 15 2016) (“The burden to show compelling reasons for sealing is not met by general assertions that 16 the information is ‘confidential . . . .’”). In addition, Plaintiff’s request to seal the entire complaint 17 is not “narrowly tailored” as required by the Local Rules. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). 18 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to seal is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule 79- 19 5(f)(2), Plaintiff’s complaint will not be considered by the Court unless she files an unredacted 20 version within 7 days of this order. If Plaintiff prefers not to file an unredacted version of the 21 complaint, she may instead file a renewed motion to seal. However, any renewed motion to seal 22 must be narrowly tailored and justified by compelling reasons supported by specific facts, and 23 must include the required attachments specified in Local Rule 79-5(d). 24 25 26 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 4/11/2017 ______________________________________ HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 28 3

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?