Sullivan v. Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corporation et al

Filing 50

ORDER Granting 43 Ex Parte Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 8/31/2010. (mjj)

Download PDF
Sullivan v. Deutsche Bank Americas Holding Corporation et al Doc. 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CYNTHIA SULLIVAN, 12 13 v. 14 DEUTSCHE BANK AMERICAS HOLDING CORPORATION, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 08cv2370 L(POR) ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL [doc. #43] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Plaintiff moves ex parte to file under seal certain documents that defendants had 18 designated as confidential under a March 5, 2010 protective order. The Court ordered 19 defendants to show cause why the 16 pages of documents plaintiff intends to introduce in her 20 motion for judgment under Rule 52 motion should be filed under seal. Having reviewed the 21 documents sought to be sealed and defendants' statement of cause, the Court will grant 22 plaintiff's ex parte motion for the reasons set forth below. 23 Historically courts have recognized a "general right to inspect and copy public records 24 and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 25 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). Three different standards govern motions to seal documents in 26 judicial proceedings. First, "the narrow range of documents such as grand jury transcripts and 27 certain warrant materials . . . traditionally have been kept secret for important policy reasons." 28 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 504 F.3d 792, 801 n.7 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks, 08cv2370 Dockets.Justia.com 1 brackets, and citation omitted); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 2 (9th Cir. 2006). Second, sealing a judicial record requires the requesting party to show 3 compelling reasons which outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 4 favoring disclosure. Pintos, 503 F.3d at 801; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Last, to shield 5 "private materials unearthed during discovery" from public view, the requesting party must meet 6 the good cause standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Pintos, 503 F.3d at 801; Foltz 7 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003); Phillips v. General 8 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002). 9 To seal documents appended to a dispositive motion such as a motion for summary 10 judgment or a motion for judgment, the requesting party must meet the compelling reasons 11 standard. Pintos, 503 F.3d at 802; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 ("the strong presumption of 12 access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary 13 judgment and related attachments). The compelling reasons standard "derives from the common 14 law right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 15 documents." Pintos, 503 F.3d at 801; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. The "good cause" standard 16 "presents and lowers the burden [because] [t]he `compelling reasons' standard does not exist for 17 documents produced between private litigants." Pintos, 503 F.3d at 801. 18 To meet the compelling reasons standard, the moving party "must overcome a strong 19 presumption of access by showing that compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings 20 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Pintos, 504 21 F.3d at 802 (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, and citation omitted); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 22 1179-80. "Under the `compelling reasons' standard, a district court must weigh relevant factors, 23 base its decision on a compelling reason, and articulate a factual basis for its ruling without 24 relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Pintos, 504 F.3d at 802 (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, 25 footnote, and citation omitted). "Relevant factors include the public interest in understanding 26 the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the 27 material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets." Id. at 802 n.9 28 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2 08cv2370 1 In their response to the order to show cause, defendants seek to have the 16 pages of 2 documents plaintiff intends to introduce in her motion sealed, thereby preserving the confidential 3 nature of the documents. The documents at issue concern Unum's unique compensation and 4 incentive programs which defendants contend could be used improperly by their competitors. 5 The documents are proprietary and not otherwise available to either the public or their 6 competitors. Further, defendants contend that the information is sensitive and has significant 7 economic value to Unum. See e.g., Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. District Court, 789 F.2d 8 1289 (9th Cir. 1996) (recognizing "strong presumption in support of the common law right to 9 inspect and copy judicial records"; noting considerations "[c]ounseling against such access 10 would be the likelihood of an improper use, including . . . trade secret materials; infringement of 11 fair trial rights of the defendants or third persons; and residual privacy rights") (internal 12 quotation and citation omitted); See Nixon v. Warner Communications 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978) 13 (the court may insure its records are not used "as sources of business information that might 14 harm a litigant's competitive standing"). 15 Based on the likelihood of an improper use by competitors and the proprietary nature of 16 the confidential information, the Court finds a compelling reason to file the 16 pages of 17 confidential documents under seal. Accordingly, plaintiff's ex parte motion to file documents 18 under seal is GRANTED. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED: August 31, 2010 21 22 23 24 COPY TO: 25 HON. LOUISA S. PORTER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL 28 3 08cv2370 M. James Lorenz United States District Court Judge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 08cv2370

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?