Schulken et al v. Washington Mutual Bank, Henderson, NV et al

Filing 218

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 215 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; denying 216 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

JEFFREY SCHULKEN AND JENNIFER
SCHULKEN, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals,

11
Plaintiffs,
12
13
14
15

v.
WASHINGTON MUITUAL BANK and JP
MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A,
Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 5:09-cv-02708-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ administrative motion to file documents partially under seal

18

“Mot.,” ECF No. 215. The documents in question are Plaintiff’s response to purported class

19

member Donald R. Earl’s objections, ECF No. 216-3, and the Declaration of Steven L. Woodrow

20

in support thereof, ECF No. 216-4. Plaintiff has proposed redactions to both of these documents.

21

Historically, courts have recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and

22

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

23

589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). Unless a particular court record is one “traditionally kept secret,” a “strong

24

presumption in favor of access” is the starting point. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance

25

Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears

26

the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard.

27

Id. at 1135. That is, the party must “articulate[ ] compelling reasons supported by specific factual

28

findings,” id. (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102-03 (9th
1
Case No.: 09-CV-02708-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL

1

Cir.1999)), that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,

2

such as the “ ‘public interest in understanding the judicial process.’” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434

3

(quoting EEOC v. Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990)).

4

The Ninth Circuit has explained that the “strong presumption of access to judicial records

5

applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related

6

attachments” because “the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary

7

judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the “public’s understanding of the judicial

8

process and of significant public events.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

9

1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit has also carved out an exception to the strong

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

presumption of openness for pre-trial, non-dispositive motions. The Ninth Circuit applies a “good

11

cause” showing to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. Id. at 1180. Thus the

12

Court applies a two tiered approach: “judicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated]

13

differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain the

14

secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that

15

‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy” while a showing of good cause will suffice at earlier stages

16

of litigation. Id.

17

Plaintiffs have requested to file redacted versions of two documents because they

18

“reference certain information regarding the bank’s records of the origination of Mr. Earl’s home

19

equity line of Credit,” Mot. at ¶ 2, and this is “personal and confidential information of Mr. Earl.”

20

Mr. Earl himself has publically disclosed significant information about his home equity line of

21

credit, and does not appear to regard such information as private or confidential. See Purported

22

Class Member Donald R. Earl’s Objections to the Settlement Offer, ECF No. 213, at 2-4. Based on

23

the Court’s review of the documents, no information in these documents meets the compelling

24

reason standard or the lower good cause standard. Accordingly, the motion to seal is DENIED

25

with prejudice.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

Dated: November 2, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

28
2
Case No.: 09-CV-02708-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL