Monterey Bay Military Housing, LLC et al v. Pinnacle Monterey LLC et al

Filing 136

ORDER DENYING 132 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT UNDER SEAL. Plaintiffs shall file the unredacted version of Exhibit 1 into the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, from the date of this order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). Signed by Hon. Beth Labson Freeman on 3/9/2015. (blflc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2015)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
MONTEREY BAY MILITARY HOUSING,
LLC, et al.,

7

Plaintiffs,

8

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE EXHIBIT UNDER
SEAL

v.

9
10

PINNACLE MONTEREY LLC, et al.,

[Re: ECF 132]

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 14-cv-03953-BLF

12
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Exhibit 1 to Plaintiffs’ Reply

13
14

in Support of Motion to File Fifth Amended Complaint Under Seal. Admin. Mot., ECF 132. As

15

the title indicates, Plaintiffs seek to seal an exhibit in support of their motion for leave to amend.

16

The document sought to be sealed was produced by Defendants on November 26, 2014 and

17

designated “Attorney’s Eyes Only” pursuant to a protective order entered in this action before it

18

was removed to federal court.1 Id. at 1. Plaintiffs requested that Defendants de-designate the

19

document, but the parties instead stipulated to file the document under seal. Id.; see Stip., ECF

20

132-3. No other explanation is provided in support of the sealing request.

21

There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to public records and documents,

22

including judicial ones. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.

23

2006). A party seeking to seal a judicial record relating to the merits of the case bears the burden

24

of overcoming this presumption by articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific factual

25

findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.”

26

Id. This standard is invoked “even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously

27
1

28

The parties have not provided this Court with a copy of the protective order.

1

filed under seal or protective order.” Id. at 1179 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

2

331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). The Ninth Circuit has carved out an exception for materials

3

attached to non-dispositive motions, requiring only a particularized “good cause” showing under

4

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for sealing such documents.2 Id. at 1179-80.
Furthermore, in this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must also follow Civil

5

Local Rule 79-5, which requires, inter alia, that a sealing request be “narrowly tailored to seek

7

sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Where the submitting party seeks to file

8

under seal a document designated confidential by another party (the “designating party”), the

9

burden of articulating compelling or particularized reasons for sealing is placed on the designating

10

party, which must supply a supporting declaration within 4 days of the filing of the administrative

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

6

motion to file under seal. Id. at 79-5(e)(1).
Plaintiffs’ request to seal documents designated confidential by Defendants was filed on

12
13

February 27, 2015. To date, Defendants have not submitted any declaration in support of the

14

sealing request. As such, Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to File Exhibit 1 Under Seal is

15

DENIED. Plaintiffs shall file the unredacted version of Exhibit 1 into the public record no earlier

16

than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, from the date of this order. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: March 9, 2015
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

The Court notes that because the protective order in this case was not entered pursuant to Rule
26, this Court has not “already [ ] determined that ‘good cause’ exists to protect this information
from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for
confidentiality.” Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th
Cir. 2002).
2