Mohebbi v. Khazen et al

Filing 134

OMNIBUS ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 10/22/2018. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/22/2018) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/22/2018: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tshS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7

SAEID MOHEBBI,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

MAHNAZ KHAZEN, et al.,
Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 13-cv-03044-BLF
OMNIBUS ORDER RE
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO
SEAL
[Re: ECF 115, 119, 120, 128, 129]

12
Before the Court are the parties’ administrative motions to file under seal portions of their

13
14

briefing and exhibits in connection with Defendants’ Application for Temporary Restraining

15

Order (ECF 112) and Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Stipulated Judgment (ECF 129-1).

16

ECF 115, 119, 120, 128, 129. For the reasons stated below, the motions are GRANTED IN

17

PART, DENIED IN PART with prejudice, and DENIED IN PART without prejudice.

18
19

I.

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

20

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of

21

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435

22

U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong

23

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

24

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to

25

motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden

26

of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

27

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d

28

1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

1

However, “while protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain

2

mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm

3

their competitive interest.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 727 F.3d 1214, 1228–29 (Fed.

4

Cir. 2013). Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the

5

merits of a case” therefore are not subject to the strong presumption of access. Ctr. for Auto

6

Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need

7

for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are

8

often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving

9

to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of
Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the

12

information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

13

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by

14

specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co.,

15

966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). A protective order sealing the documents during discovery

16

may reflect the court’s previous determination that good cause exists to keep the documents

17

sealed, see Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80, but a blanket protective order that allows the parties

18

to designate confidential documents does not provide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine

19

whether each particular document should remain sealed. See Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A) (“Reference

20

to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as

21

confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.”).

22

In addition to making particularized showings of good cause, parties moving to seal

23

documents must comply with the procedures established by Civ. L.R. 79-5. Pursuant to Civ. L.R.

24

79-5(b), a sealing order is appropriate only upon a request that establishes the document is

25

“sealable,” or “privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under

26

the law.” “The request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material, and

27

must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). In part, Civ. L.R. 79-5(d) requires the

28

submitting party to attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable
2

1

material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that is sought to be

2

sealed,” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(b), and an “unredacted version of the document” that indicates “by

3

highlighting or other clear method, the portions of the document that have been omitted from the

4

redacted version.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(d). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative

5

Motion to File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration as required by subsection

6

79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).

7

II.

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff and Defendants’ sealing motions and the declarations of

8
9

DISCUSSION

the designating parties submitted in support thereof. The Court finds that the parties have
articulated compelling reasons to seal certain portions of some of the submitted documents. While

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

some of the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored, some are not. The Court’s rulings on the

12

sealing requests are set forth in the tables below.

13
14
15

A.
ECF 115 and ECF 119 (Defendants’ Motions re TRO)
ECF Document to be Sealed:
Result
No.
119

16
17

119-1

18
19

Reasoning

Defendants’
DENIED WITH
Administrative Motion to PREJUDICE.
File Under Seal

Defendants have not provided
sufficient reasons for sealing.

Comprehensive
GRANTED.
Settlement, Release, and
Security Agreement
(“Settlement
Agreement”)

The Settlement Agreement is
designated confidential under
Section 4 of the agreement.
Benning Decl. ¶ 2, ECF 115-1;
Settlement Agreement § 4.1

20
This ruling applies only to
Defendants’ request to seal at
119-1.

21
22
23
24

119-2

Reinstatement and
Second Amendment to
Contract of Sale
(“Contract of Sale”)

GRANTED.

25

The Contract of Sale contains
sensitive and confidential
information of a third party,
disclosure of which would harm
Defendants. Benning Decl. ¶ 3,
ECF 115-1.

26
This ruling applies only to
Defendants’ request to seal at
119-2.

27
28
3

1

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

2

119-3

Email re Notice of
Default

3

Result
GRANTED.

4

Reasoning
The Email re Notice of Default
contains sensitive and confidential
information, disclosure of which
would harm Defendants. Benning
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 115-1.

5
This ruling applies only to
Defendants’ request to seal at
119-3.

6
7
8

119-4

Email re Notice of
Default

GRANTED.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

The Email re Notice of Default
contains sensitive and confidential
information, disclosure of which
would harm Defendants. Benning
Decl. ¶ 3, ECF 115-1.
This ruling applies only to
Defendants’ request to seal at
119-4.

12
13
14

B.

15
16
17
18

ECF 120 (Plaintiff’s Motion re Opposition to TRO)

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Application for TRO and supporting documents
(ECF 120, 120-1, 120-2, 120-3) were filed under conditional seal. Plaintiff objects to any and all
sealing of the Application for Stipulated Judgment and supporting documents. See ECF 120 at 1.
Defendants request sealing.

19
20

Document to be Sealed:

120

21

ECF
No.

Plaintiff’s Administrative DENIED WITH
Motion to File Under
PREJUDICE.
Seal

22
23

Result

Reasoning
Defendants have not provided
sufficient reasons for sealing.

Defendants’ request to Defendants request sealing of the
seal is DENIED without entire document. This proposed
prejudice.
redaction is not narrowly tailored.

120-1

Declaration of Steven
Holland

120-2

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ request to Defendants request sealing of the
Defendants’ Application seal is DENIED without entire document. This proposed
for TRO
prejudice.
redaction is not narrowly tailored.

120-3

Plaintiff’s Proposed
Order

24
25
26
27
28

DENIED WITH
PREJUDICE.
4

Defendants have not provided
sufficient reasons for sealing.

1
2
3

C.
ECF 128 (Plaintiff’s Motion re Updated Opposition to TRO)
ECF Document to be Sealed:
Result
Reasoning
No.
128-1

4

Plaintiff’s Updated
Defendants’ request to Defendants request sealing of the
Opposition to
seal is DENIED without entire document. This proposed
Defendants’ Application prejudice.
redaction is not narrowly tailored.
for TRO

5
6
7

D.

ECF 129 (Plaintiff’s Motion re Application for Stipulated Judgment)

Plaintiff’s Application for Stipulated Judgment Pursuant to Comprehensive Settlement,

8
Release, and Security Agreement (ECF 129-1) and supporting documents (ECF 129-2, 129-3,
9
129-4, 129-5) were filed under conditional seal. Plaintiff objects to any and all sealing of the
10
Application for Stipulated Judgment and supporting documents. See ECF 129 at 1; ECF 131 at 1.
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants request sealing of all of the documents in their entirety. See ECF 132 at 2.
12
13
14
15

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

129-1

Plaintiff’s Application
Defendants’ request to Defendants request sealing of the
for Entry of Stipulated
seal is DENIED without entire document. This proposed
Judgment Pursuant to
prejudice.
redaction is not narrowly tailored.
Comprehensive
Settlement, Release, and
Security Agreement

129-2

Plaintiff’s Memorandum Defendants’ request to Defendants request sealing of the
of Points and Authorities seal is DENIED without entire document. This proposed
in Support of Plaintiff’s prejudice.
redaction is not narrowly tailored.
Application for Entry of
Stipulated Judgment

129-3

Declaration of Steven N. Defendants’ request to Defendants request sealing of the
Holland in Support of
seal is DENIED without entire document. This proposed
Plaintiff’s Application
prejudice.
redaction is not narrowly tailored.
for Entry of Stipulated
Judgment

129-4

Declaration of Saeid
Mohebbi in Support of
Plaintiff’s Application
for Entry of Stipulated
Judgment

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Result

Reasoning

Defendants’ request to Defendants request sealing of the
seal is DENIED without entire document. This proposed
prejudice.
redaction is not narrowly tailored.

28
5

1

ECF
No.

Document to be Sealed:

2

129-5

Declaration of Dariush
Gilani in Support of
Plaintiff’s Application
for Entry of Stipulated
Judgment

3
4

Result

Reasoning

Defendants’ request to Defendants request sealing of the
seal is DENIED without entire document. This proposed
prejudice.
redaction is not narrowly tailored.

5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

III.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the sealing motions at ECF 115, 119, 120, 128, and 129 are

GRANTED IN PART, DENIED IN PART with prejudice, and DENIED IN PART without
prejudice. For any document that has been denied sealing without prejudice, the designating
party (Defendants) may renew its request for sealing by submitting more narrowly tailored
redactions and supporting declaration(s). Defendants are reminded that as the Designating Party
seeking sealing, Defendants bear the burden of “establishing that all of the designated material is
sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
Any renewed request must be filed on or before October 29, 2018. If no renewed request
is filed by that date, the sealing request will be denied with prejudice. For any request that has
been denied with prejudice because the designating party has not provided sufficient reasons to
seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser redacted) documents into the public
record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days from the filing of this order. Civ. L.R. 795(e)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24
25

Dated: October 22, 2018
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
6