Rich v. Shrader et al

Filing 120

ORDER Granting Defendants' 119 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Defendant is directed to prepare a public redacted version of their brief, to be filed along with their sealed brief. The Clerk of Court is directed to seal Defendants Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 11/26/2013. (rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14

FOSTER RICH,
Plaintiff,

v.

RALPH W. SHRADER, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 09cv652 AJB (BGS)
ORDER:
GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
[Doc. No. 119]

17
18

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Seal Confidential Information Con-

19

tained or Attached to Defendants’ Reply in Support of their Motion for Summary

20

Judgment. (Doc. No. 119.) The Court has already granted the parties motions to seal in

21

regards to Defendants’ Motion for Summary and Plaintiff’s Opposition. (Doc. No. 116.)

22

In the instant motion, Defendants’ seek to seal the same information and documents the

23

Court has already permitted Defendants’ to file under seal in the previous Order. For the

24

reasons stated, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.

25

I. DISCUSSION

26

A. Legal Standard

27

Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public

28

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner
1

09cv652

1

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is

2

one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting

3

point. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)

4

(quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)).

5

In order to overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record

6

must articulate justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring

7

disclosure. See id. at 1178–79. In turn, the court must “conscientiously balance []

8

balance the competing interests” of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain

9

judicial records secret. Id. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal

10

certain judicial records, it must “base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate

11

the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (citing

12

Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)).

13

A strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositve

14

pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments. Thus

15

compelling reasons must be shown to seal judicial records attached. See id (internal

16

citations omitted). Relevant factors include the “public interest in understanding the

17

judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use...”

18

Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 659 (9th Cir. 2010)(citations omitted).

19

In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure

20

and justify sealing court records exist when such “court files might have become a

21

vehicle for improper purposes,” such as the use of records to gratify private spite,

22

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Id. (citing

23

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598).

24

B. Defendant’s Motion

25

Defendants request that certain portions of their Reply Memorandum and exhibits

26

be filed under seal on the grounds that they contain sensitive business information that

27

may be subject to improper use by Booz Allen’s competitors if publically disseminated.

28
2

09cv652

1

Defendants have provided the Court with a description of what the specific items sought

2

to be sealed.

3

(1)

Confidential Materials in the Reply Memorandum
Having reviewed the listed items described as confidential materials to be

4
5

discussed in the Reply Memorandum, the Court finds the information to warrant sealing.

6

The information discussed contain internal partnership evaluations, management

7

expectations and performance reviews, financial information, as well as company

8

strategies to improve employee performance and experience. If disseminated, Defen-

9

dants argue that Booz Allen’s competitors would gain access to operational and person-

10

nel information, projections and modeling, and strategic positioning vis-a-vis its

11

competitors.
On the other hand, the public would receive little benefit from the information

12
13

contained therein, and gain little insight into the judicial process. Thus Defendants have

14

provided compelling reasons that outweigh the presumption of public disclosure to file

15

those specific portions under seal.

16

(2)

Exhibits Filed with Defendants’ Declaration
Exhibits 16 and 17 to be attached with Defendants’ Declaration contain additional

17
18

excerpts from deposition testimony discussing Booz Allen’s employee review system,

19

internal policies, employment standards, and partnership advancement. Defendants have

20

provided a detailed description of the limited contents they seek to seal. The Court has

21

previously found such information to warrant filing under seal as they may be subject to

22

improper use by Booz Allen competitors if publically disseminated.
The Court again concludes that Defendants have met their burden to justify their

23
24

request and the public would receive little benefit from the information sought to be

25

sealed. Defendants have shown compelling reasons that outweigh the presumption of

26

public disclosure.

27

//

28

//
3

09cv652

1
2

II. CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion.

3

Defendant is directed to prepare a public redacted version of their brief, to be filed along

4

with their sealed brief. The Clerk of Court is directed to seal Defendants’ Reply in

5

Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED: November 26, 2013

10
11

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
U.S. District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

09cv652