McGibney et al v. Retzlaff

Filing 197

ORDER DENYING 175 MOTION FOR SANCTIONS; DENYING 177 MOTION TO STRIKE as moot; DENYING 185 , 186 MOTIONS TO SEAL JUDICIAL RECORDS. Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 8/5/2015. (blflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
JAMES MCGIBNEY, et al.,

7

Case No. 14-cv-01059-BLF

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO SEAL
JUDICIAL RECORDS

v.
9
THOMAS RETZLAFF,

10

[Re: ECF 175, 185, 186]

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

The “Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions” filed by pro se defendant Thomas Retzlaff, ECF 175,

14

is DENIED.1 The Court has fully considered the matter and concludes that Rule 11 sanctions are

15

inappropriate under the circumstances of this case, where the Court determined that Plaintiffs had

16

not satisfied their evidentiary burden to establish this Court’s personal jurisdiction over Defendant.

17

Based on the dismissal of this case for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court cannot conclude that

18

Plaintiffs violated Rule 11 at the time that Plaintiffs’ counsel signed the pleadings, motions, or

19

other papers in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a)-(b); Cunningham v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 879 F.2d

20

481, 490 (9th Cir. 1988) (Rule 11 applies at initial signing of pleadings, motions, or other papers).

21

Nor is the Court persuaded by Defendant’s request for sanctions pursuant to the Court’s inherent

22

power and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. In light of the large volume of filings and accusations that both sides

23

have launched against each other (much of which, as the Court repeatedly admonished, was

24

largely irrelevant to the issues and stricken as such), the Court cannot conclude that Plaintiffs

25

acted in bad faith or that Plaintiffs’ counsel “multiplie[d] the proceedings” in this case

26

“unreasonably and vexatiously.” 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

27
28

1

Plaintiffs’ motion to strike Defendant’s motion, ECF 177, is DENIED as moot.

1

The two identical Motion(s) to Seal Judicial Records filed by Defendant, ECF 185 and

2

186, are DENIED. “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong

3

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447

4

F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

5

1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a judicial record thus bears the burden of

6

overcoming this strong presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific

7

factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring

8

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “The mere fact that

9

the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to
further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at 1179. These

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

proceedings have been a matter of public record since their inception, and Defendant did not

12

timely renew his original sealing request, which the Court denied without prejudice on October

13

17, 2014, ECF 78, for failure to comply with the local rules. Defendant now seeks to seal a

14

number of Plaintiffs’ filings and evidence, many of which were made in response to Defendant’s

15

numerous motions in this case. As an initial matter, the Court previously explained to Defendant

16

that the rules of this district require that sealing requests be narrowly tailored. Civ. L.R. 79-5.

17

Defendant’s request is anything but. Furthermore, in light of the fact that this action was

18

dismissed before any discovery was taken, and insofar as the parties in this case are determined to

19

unearth information about each other from the Internet, the Court cannot discern whether anything

20

filed in this case is of the type “traditionally kept secret” over which Defendant has a claim to

21

privacy. In sum, Defendant’s conclusory claims to embarrassment and harassment are insufficient

22

to demonstrate compelling reasons in favor of sealing the heretofore public judicial records in this

23

case. Accord Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2014).

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 5, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

28
2