Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. BayOne Real Estate Investment Corporation et al

Filing 89

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 70 MOTION TO SEAL. Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 4/19/2017. (blflc4S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2017)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7
8

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

9
v.

Case No. 15-cv-02248-BLF
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

BAYONE REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT
CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Before the Court is Defendants’ administrative motion to file under seal certain documents

14
15

in connection with their motion for summary judgment. ECF 70. For the reasons stated below,

16

the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

17
18

I.

LEGAL STANDARD
There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” to judicial records. Kamakana v. City &

19

Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

20

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal judicial records bears the

21

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

22

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

23

disclosure.” Id. at 1178-79. Compelling reasons for sealing court files generally exist when such

24

“‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to

25

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade

26

secrets.” Id. (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). However,

27

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

28

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

1

records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Ultimately, “[w]hat constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is

2

‘best left to the sound discretion of the trial court.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrslyer Grp., LLC,

3

809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).
“Despite this strong preference for public access, [the Ninth Circuit has] carved out an

4
5

exception,” id. at 1097, for judicial records attached to motions that are “tangentially related to the

6

merits of a case,” id. at 1101. Parties moving to seal such records need only make a

7

“particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

8

26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138).
In this District, parties seeking to seal judicial records must furthermore follow Civil Local

9

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

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b) (emphasis added). Where the submitting party

12

seeks to file under seal a document designated confidential by another party, the burden of

13

articulating compelling reasons for sealing is placed on the designating party. Id. 79-5(e).

14
15

II.

DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the sealing motion and the declaration of James Cracolice in

16

support thereof. According to the declaration, Defendants only seek to seal personal confidential

17

information such as social security numbers, dates of birth, and taxpayer identification numbers.

18

Cracolice Decl., ECF 70-1 ¶ 7.

19

The Court finds that the “compelling” standard applies, as the documents to be sealed are

20

submitted in support of a dispositive motion. Personal information such as social security

21

numbers and dates of firth, they are appropriately sealable. E.g., Seals v. Mitchell, No. 04-3764-

22

NJV, 2011 WL 1233650, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2011) (granting motion to seal employment

23

records and personnel records because of a need for confidentiality). With respect to portions of

24

the request that are denied below, the declaration fails to establish that the identified material is

25

“sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a

26

party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document,

27

or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. The compelling reasons standard must be met even as to

28

documents that were previously filed under seal or protective order. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
2

1

The Court’s rulings on the sealing request are set forth in the table below:

2
3
4
5
6

Identification of Documents
to be Sealed
Defendants’ Notice of Motion
and Motion For Summary
Judgment (“Motion for
Summary Judgment”)

7
8
9
10

Exhibits 1, 3, 7, 11, 13-15, and
18-20, 22, 23 to Cracolice
Decl.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

Exhibits 10, 12, and 21 to
Cracolice Decl.

16
17
18
19

Exhibits 17 to Cracolice Decl.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Cracolice Decl. in support of
Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment

Description of Documents
and Request
Highlighted portions reference
documents that Plaintiff has
designated as confidential.
Defendants’ declaration
provides no compelling
reasons and Plaintiff has not
submitted a declaration in
support of sealing the
highlighted portions.
Highlighted portions reference
documents that Plaintiff has
designated as confidential.
Defendants’ declaration
provides no compelling
reasons and Plaintiff has not
submitted a declaration in
support of sealing the
highlighted portions.
Federal taxpayer identification
number is sealable. As to
other highlighted portions,
Defendants’ declaration
provides no compelling
reasons and Plaintiff has not
submitted a declaration in
support of sealing them.
Federal taxpayer identification,
social security number and
date of birth are sealable. As
to other highlighted portions,
Defendants’ declaration
provides no compelling
reasons and Plaintiff has not
submitted a declaration in
support of sealing them.
Highlighted portions reference
documents that Plaintiff has
designated as confidential.
Defendants’ declaration
provides no compelling
reasons and Plaintiff has not
submitted a declaration in
support of sealing the
3

Court’s Order
DENIED.

DENIED.

GRANTED as to federal tax
payer identification number;
and DENIED as to remainder.

GRANTED as to federal tax
payer identification number,
social security number, and
date of birth; and DENIED as
to remainder.

DENIED.

1
2

Guo Decl. in support of
Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment

3
4
5
6

highlighted portions.
Highlighted portions reference
documents that Plaintiff has
designated as confidential.
Defendants’ declaration
provides no compelling
reasons and Plaintiff has not
submitted a declaration in
support of sealing the
highlighted portions.

DENIED.

7
8

III.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the

10

sealing motion at ECF 70. Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(2), for any request that has been

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

denied because the party designating a document as confidential or subject to a protective order

12

has not provided sufficient reasons to seal, the submitting party must file the unredacted (or lesser

13

redacted) documents into the public record no earlier than 4 days and no later than 10 days form

14

the filing of this order. Alternatively, the moving party may also renew the motion so to provide

15

sufficient reasons in supporting declarations no later than 10 days form the filing of this order.

16
17
18
19

Dated: April 19, 2017
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4