Hubbard v. Phil's BBQ of Point Loma, Inc. et al
Filing
143
ORDER denying without prejudice motion to file declaration under seal. No later than noon on Friday, October 19, 2012, Pace and Loya may renew their application, which must be filed in the docket. The Court will retain the lodged materials, however, and they need not refile those. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 10/16/12.(kaj)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THOMAS HUBBARD,
CASE NO. 09CV0735-LAB (KSC)
12
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO FILE
DECLARATION UNDER SEAL
vs.
13
14
15
16
PHIL’S BBQ OF POINT LOMA, INC., a
California corporation; PHILLIP C. PACE
and JEFFREY A. LOYA,
Defendants.
17
18
Defendants Pace and Loya have moved ex parte for an order permitting the
19
declaration of John Cheng (offered in support of their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for
20
summary judgment), and the motion is unopposed. The motion does not brief the standard
21
for sealing of documents submitted in connection with dispositive motions, and the parties’
22
consent to have it sealed is insufficient. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447
23
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006).
24
The Court notes that the declaration contains confidential financial information that
25
is subject to a protective order. But the mere fact that a protective order is in place does not
26
mean that the standard for filing documents under seal is met. See Pintos v. Pacific
27
Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678–79 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing “compelling reasons”
28
standard that applied to motion to seal documents in support of motion for summary
-1-
09CV0735
1
judgment, and contrasting this standard with standard for protective order). Before sealing,
2
the Court “must weigh relevant factors, base its decision on a compelling reason, and
3
articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at
4
679 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)) (quotation marks
5
omitted).
6
Because Pace’s and Loya’s application does not explain in any detail the reason why
7
sealing is needed, the Court cannot undertake the required analysis. The application is
8
therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. No later than noon on Friday, October 19, 2012,
9
Pace and Loya may renew their application, which must be filed in the docket. The Court will
10
11
12
retain the lodged materials, however, and they need not refile those.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 16, 2012
13
14
HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
09CV0735
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?