Securities and Exchange Commission v. Total Wealth Management, Inc. et al

Filing 198

ORDER Granting 196 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 3/5/2018. (mxn)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION,

14
15
16
17

Case No. 15-cv-00226-BAS-DHB
ORDER GRANTING MOTION
TO SEAL

Plaintiff,
v.

[ECF No. 196]

TOTAL WEALTH
MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

18
19

Before the Court is an ex parte motion by Receiver Thomas A. Seaman to file

20

under seal a joint motion by and among the Receiver and Plaintiff Securities and

21

Exchange Commission for approval of two confidential settlements. (ECF No. 196).

22

The Receiver and the Commission indicate that, consistent with this Court’s practice

23

in this matter of requesting the settlement agreement in order to approve a settlement,

24

the settlements will be submitted with the joint motion. (Id.) The Court grants the

25

motion to seal.

26

LEGAL STANDARD

27

“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy

28

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v.
–1–
15cv226

1

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record

2

is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the

3

starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

4

2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.

5

2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although

6

independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure

7

of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of

8

justice.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.

9

2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

10

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the

11

strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to

12

meet this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion

13

that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety

14

v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). When the underlying

15

motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling reasons”

16

standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass the

17

tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id.

18

DISCUSSION

19

Here, the joint motion the Receiver and the Commission seek to file under seal

20

is only tangentially related to the merits of the case. For this reason, the Court

21

assesses whether there is good cause to file the joint motion under seal. The moving

22

parties argue that the joint motion should be filed under seal because the terms of the

23

settlement agreement are confidential and appended to the motion. (ECF No. 196 at

24

3.) The Court agrees that there is good cause to file the joint motion under seal for

25

this reason. Moreover, this is consistent with this Court’s prior grant of a motion to

26

seal a joint motion to approve a settlement agreement related to this action. (See ECF

27

No. 183.)

28
–2–
15cv226

1

CONCLUSION & ORDER

2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the ex parte motion to file

3

under seal. (ECF No. 196.) The joint motion lodged under seal (ECF No. 197) shall

4

remain under seal.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: March 5, 2018

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–3–
15cv226