Spangler et al v. National College of Technical Instruction et al

Filing 154

ORDER Denying 100 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Plaintiffs have not provided compelling reasons for filing the identified documents under seal. Accordingly, their motion is denied. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 8/15/2017. (lrf) (sjt).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

JUSTIN SPANGLER, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16
17

Case No. 14-cv-3005 DMS (RBB)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER
SEAL

v.
NATIONAL COLLEGE OF
TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION, et
al.,
Defendants.

18

On September 2, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file under seal

19

their reply brief in support of their motion for partial summary judgment along with

20

other documents supporting that reply brief. (See Docket No. 100.)

21

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

22

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Rieckborn v.

23

Velti PLC, No. 13-cv-03889-WHO, 2014 WL 4964313, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3,

24

2014) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)).

25

However, “[t]his right is not absolute. To balance the competing interests of the

26

public’s right of access against litigants’ need for confidentiality, a party seeking to

27

file under seal materials related to dispositive motions must provide ‘compelling

28

reasons’ to do so.” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
–1–

14-cv-3005 DMS (RBB)

1

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). Under this standard, “a party seeking to seal materials

2

must ‘articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,’

3

providing the court with ‘articulable facts’ identifying the particular interests

4

favoring secrecy and showing how those interests outweigh the ‘strong presumption’

5

favoring disclosure.” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-81). “In general,

6

compelling reasons sufficient to justify sealing exist when the materials ‘might have

7

become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as ... to gratify private spite, promote

8

public scandal, ... or release trade secrets.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

9

1179). “‘The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s

10

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without

11

more, compel the court to seal its records.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

12

1179).

13

Here, Plaintiffs have not provided compelling reasons for filing the identified

14

documents under seal. Accordingly, their motion is denied. The Clerk of Court

15

shall file the documents according to the regular filing procedure.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 15, 2017

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–2–

14-cv-3005 DMS (RBB)