Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc. et al

Filing 98

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 91 Motion to File Certain Portions of the Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute No. 2 Under Seal. Court permits Plaintiff to file a redacted version of Defendants' sections of the Joint Motion and sections of the Chitlock and Stigi Declarations containing the Former Employee's identifying information, and redacting the identifying information of the Former Employee in Exhibits B, I, K, L to the Stigi Declaration and the entirety of Exhibit M. and Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 3/22/2017. (jah)

tLED

1

2

l1 HAR 23 AH 8: 31

3
4

5

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

12

HOUSTON MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES
PENSION SYSTEM, Individually and On
Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,

13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 15cv2324 GPC (KSC)

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL

v.
BOFI HOLDING, INC., GREGORY
GARRABRANTS, ANDREW J.
MICHELETTI, PAUL J. GRINBERG,
NICHOLAS A. MOSICH, AND JAMES
S. ARGALAS,

Doc. No. 91

Defendants.

19
20
21

Before the Court is plaintiff's Motion to File Documents Under Seal certain portions

22

of the Joint Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute No. 2 ("Joint Motion") [Doc.

23

No. 90], including certain portions of the Declaration of Daniel P. Chiplock ("Chiplock

24

Declaration") and the Declaration of John P. Stigi III ("Stigi Declaration") and certain

25

exhibits thereto. [Doc. No. 91.] Plaintiff brings this Motion pursuant to Local Rule 79 .2(c)

26

asserting that good cause exists in favor of sealing the documents.

27

explained in more detail below, plaintiff's Motion to File Documents Under Seal is

28

GRANTED.

For the reasons

15cv2324 GPC (KSC)

1

Documents filed under seal are not accessible to the public. In the Ninth Circuit,

2

there is a strong presumption in favor of access to court records. Hages tad v. Tragesser, 49

3

F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (recognizing strong presumption in context of civil trial).

4

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

5

presumption by meeting the "compelling reasons" standard. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

6 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). That is, the party must "articulate[]
7

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings." Id. (internal citation omitted).

8

The court must "conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests" of the public and the

9

party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. After

10

considering these interests, ifthe court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must "base

11

its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without

12

relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434 (internal citation omitted).

13

In general, "compelling reasons" sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in

14

disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when "court files might have become a

15

vehicle for improper purposes," such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote

16

public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Nixon v. Warner

17

Commc 'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 & n. 7 (1978).

18

Here, the information plaintiff seeks to file under seal relates to the identity of a non-

19

party former employee ("Former Employee") of defendant Bofl Holding, Inc. ("Bo fl")

20

who provided documents in connection with this litigation to an investigator employed by

21

lead counsel for plaintiff, and which documents are the subject of a discovery dispute

22

currently pending. [Doc. No. 90.] The Former Employee reportedly fears retaliation and

23

potential use of her information for improper purposes. [Doc. No. 91, at p. 2; see also

24

Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund v. Arbitron, Inc.,

25

278 F.R.D. 335, 344 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (noting that a confidential witness "may have a

26

legitimate interest in non-disclosure, where revealing his or her name may lead to

27

retaliation in a current or future job.").]

28
2
15cv2324 GPC (KSC)

1

Specifically, plaintiff seeks to file under seal and an order permitting plaintiff to file

2

a redacted version of the following: (1) Defendants' sections of the Joint Motion containing

3

the Former Employee's identifying information; (2) the Chiplock and Stigi Declarations;

4

and (3) the following exhibits to the Stigi Declaration: Exhibit B, Exhibit I, Exhibit K,

5

Exhibit L, and the entirety of Exhibit M (per Bofl's request).

6

Accordingly, because the Court finds the above-mentioned grounds to be compelling

7

reasons that outweigh the public's interest in disclosure, the Court GRANTS plaintiff's

8

motion to file under seal and an order permitting plaintiff to file a redacted version of ( 1)

9

Defendants' sections of the Joint Motion containing the Former Employee's identifying

10

information; (2) the sections of the Chiplock and Stigi Declarations containing the Former

11

Employee's identifying information; (3) redacting the identifying information of the

12

Former Employee in Exhibits B, I, K, L to the Stigi Declaration and the entirety of Exhibit

13

M.

14

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March '142017

16

17

United States Magistrate Judge

18
19

20

21
22
23
24

25

26

27
28
3
15cv2324 GPC (KSC)