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)
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?