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)

Download PDF
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

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?