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)

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