Jafari v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al

Filing 126

ORDER denying without prejudice 122 Application to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 4/23/15. (kas)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REZA JAFARI and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY CASE NO. 12cv2982-LAB (RBB) ORDER DENYING APPLICATION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 12 Plaintiffs, vs. 13 14 15 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for La Jolla Bank; et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 In support of their opposition to the FDIC’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, 20 or alternatively, motion for summary judgment (Docket no. 110), Plaintiffs have filed an 21 application to file documents under seal. (Docket no. 122.) 22 There is a strong underlying presumption that the public will have access to any 23 document filed with the Court. See Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th 24 Cir. 2002). The standard for sealing documents in support of briefing on a dispositive motion 25 is high, and requires a showing that "compelling reasons" support a need for secrecy. 26 Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). If the request 27 is granted, the Court's sealing order must weigh the competing interests and articulate the 28 /// -1- 12cv1971 1 factual basis for its ruling without relying on hypothesis or conjecture, and the order must be 2 narrowly tailored. Id. at 1179; Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 13–14 (1986). 3 The only reason the motion gives for sealing is that the protective order (Docket no. 4 44) requires it. But the protective order was issued pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, and 5 does not include enough analysis to show that the high standard is met for sealing 6 documents filed in support of briefing on a dispositive motion. 7 The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs may renew it by filing an ex 8 parte application that shows why the standard is met, and permits the Court to make the 9 findings necessary to satisfy the high standard for sealing such documents. Any renewed 10 motion should also explain why the order that Plaintiff requests is narrowly tailored. For 11 example, no more should be sealed than is necessary to serve the compelling interest that 12 the Court must find. If the FDIC improperly designated the documents confidential, Plaintiffs 13 may object to the designation using the procedure provided in the protective order. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 23, 2015 16 17 HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- 12cv1971

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?