Mohebbi v. Khazen et al

Filing 154

ORDER DENYING 143 DEFENDANTS' RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 1/10/2019. (blflc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2019)

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
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
RENEWED ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[Re: ECF 143]

12
Before the Court is Defendants’ Renewed Administrative Motion to File Under Seal

13
14

(“Motion”). Motion, ECF 143. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. Opp’n, ECF 145. For the reasons

15

stated below, Defendants’ Motion is DENIED.

16

On October 22, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part five separate sealing

17

motions in this action. See Omnibus Order, ECF 134. The Omnibus Order permitted renewed

18

requests to seal certain documents or portions of documents, and the instant Motion followed.

19
20

I.

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

21

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of

22

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

23

U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Consequently, access to motions and their attachments that are

24

“more than tangentially related to the merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of

25

“compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

26

1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed

27

upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 1097. In addition, sealing motions filed in this

28

district must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

1

A party moving to seal a document in whole or in part must file a declaration establishing that the

2

identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or

3

protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient

4

to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id.

5
6

II.

DISCUSSION
Defendants’ Motion seeks to seal portions of six documents: ECF 120-1, 120-2, 128-1,

129-1, 129-2, and 129-3. See Motion at 2–4, ECF 143. These six documents are declarations and

8

briefs that refer to either the parties’ ICC Arbitration Award or the parties Comprehensive

9

Settlement, Release, and Security Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”). Id. Defendants request

10

sealing of the entire Settlement Agreement and its exhibits and portions of the Arbitration Award.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

Id. Defendants argue that sealing is justified because “certain provocative factual findings in the

12

ICC Arbitration Award . . . could affect their professional standings if disclosed” and because the

13

Court previously granted a sealing request concerning the Settlement Agreement. Id. The Court

14

disagrees for at least three reasons.

15

First, the Court’s order that previously granted sealing of the Settlement Agreement

16

explicitly limited sealing to “Defendants’ request to seal at [ECF] 119-1” only. See Omnibus

17

Order at 3, ECF 134. The Omnibus Order permitted sealing during briefing on the parties’

18

underlying dispute (see ECF 129-1) prior to full review by the Court. That review is now

19

complete and the Omnibus Order does not dictate continued sealing because it was limited to

20

Defendants’ previous request only.

21

Second, the Settlement Agreement explicitly provides that notwithstanding the

22

confidentiality provisions, the Arbitration Award and “all of the terms and conditions” of the

23

Settlement Agreement “may be disclosed as follows: . . . (c) in any action or proceeding to enforce

24

this [Settlement] Agreement.” See Settlement Agreement § 4.1, Ex. 2 to Holland Decl., ECF 120-

25

1. As Plaintiff points out, see Opp’n at 2, the parties have been litigating enforcement of the

26

Settlement Agreement, see, e.g., ECF 112; ECF 129-1. Moreover, the Settlement Agreement

27

states that “Stipulated Judgment may confirm and attach the [Arbitration] Award, notwithstanding

28

the confidentiality provision in section 4.1.” See Settlement Agreement § 5.1(b). The Court has
2

1

since ruled that Plaintiff is entitled to entry of such Stipulated Judgment under the Settlement

2

Agreement. See ECF 153. Additionally, nothing in the Settlement Agreement provided for in

3

camera review by the Court only. Section 4.1 expressly allows “disclosure in any action” to

4

enforce the Settlement Agreement. “Disclosure” can only be reasonably interpreted as filing in

5

the public court record. Thus, public disclosure of the Arbitration Award and Settlement

6

Agreement is permissible and warranted per the terms of the Settlement Agreement.
Third, the Arbitration Award and Settlement Agreement are “more than tangentially

7
8

related to the merits of [the] case” and Defendants have not articulated “compelling reasons” for

9

sealing. See Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101–02. Defendants assert that their “professional
standings” could be “affect[ed]” by public disclosure of the documents. See Motion at 2.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

12

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its

13

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Here, Defendants have submitted nothing more than the

14

possibility of such denunciation, and thus have failed to make the requisite showing. Accordingly,

15

no grounds exist upon which to grant Defendants’ Motion.

16

III.

17

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Renewed Administrative Motion to File Under

18

Seal at ECF 143 is DENIED. The parties are directed to file the unredacted versions of the

19

documents for which sealing was denied, consistent with this ruling, as a separate docket entry no

20

earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, from the date of this order.

21
22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2019
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

26
27
28
3