Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company v. California Finest Oil et al

Filing 85

ORDER Denying Without Prejudice 70 Plaintiff's Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Plaintiff shall have until January 22, 2014, to file a renewed motion to seal. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 1/16/2014. (srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

TESORO REFINING AND
MARKETING COMPANY,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
CALIFORNIA FINEST OIL, a
)
California corporation, RAAD
)
ATTISHA, an individual, HOSSOM
)
THEWENY, an individual, NAZAR
)
THEWENY, an individual, and DOES )
1 through 10, inclusive,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS. )
)

Case No. 3:12-cv-1312-GPC-WVG
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
(DKT. NO. 70)

21

On September 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment as to

22

Defendant California Finest Oil’s counterclaim. (Dkt. No. 72.) Along with the motion

23

for summary judgment, Plaintiff filed a motion to file two declarations and attached

24

exhibits under seal. (Dkt. No. 70.) In the motion to file under seal, Plaintiff asserts

25

these documents should be filed under seal because they contain information and

26

documents designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the stipulated protective order

27

entered into by the parties on December 14, 2012, (Dkt. No. 25), and approved by

28

Judge Gallo on December 19, 2012, (Dkt. No. 26). Plaintiff further asserts that three
3:12-cv-1312-GPC-WVG

1

exhibits contain Plaintiff’s confidential internal, proprietary business and financial

2

information. (Dkt. No. 70 at 3.)

3

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

4

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City

5

and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner

6

Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records

7

relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with

8

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings” that outweigh the general

9

history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178-79; cf. id. at

10

1179-80 (contrasting the “compelling reasons” standard with the lower “good cause”

11

standard applied to motions to seal documents submitted in support of non-dispositive

12

motions). Plaintiff has not set forth such compelling reasons to justify sealing the

13

documents set forth in the motion to file under seal. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

14

Because the documents Plaintiff seeks to seal are in support of a dispositive motion,

15

the fact that the documents were marked or deemed “Confidential” by the parties does

16

not, by itself, satisfy the “compelling reasons” standard as to the specific pieces of

17

information that Plaintiff wants sealed. See id. at 1183-84; see also Foltz v. State Farm

18

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134-38 (9th Cir. 2003).

19

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to file under seal, (Dkt. No. 70), is

20

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff shall have until January 22, 2014, to

21

file a motion to seal that sets forth the compelling reasons for sealing the specific

22

pieces of information that Plaintiff seeks to seal. The documents currently lodged

23

under seal at Dkt. No. 71-1 through 71-7 may remain so lodged until the Court decides

24

Plaintiff’s forthcoming motion to seal.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 16, 2014

27
28

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL
United States District Judge
2

3:12-cv-1312-GPC-WVG