Pacific Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Wartsila Defense, Inc. et al

Filing 86

ORDER Denying 76 Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Permitting Plaintiff to File Documents Under Seal. Plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice to publicly file redacted versions of the exhibits, and move to seal only the portions as to which a particularized showing can be made. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 11/5/2018. (rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

PACIFIC MARINE PROPELLERS,
INC.,

15
16

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION FOR AN ORDER
PERMITTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE
DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 17-cv-555-L-NLS

v.
WARTSILA DEFENSE, INC., et al,
Defendants.

17
18

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's unopposed motion to file under seal seven

19

exhibits in opposition to Defendants' pending summary judgment motion. For the

20

reasons which follow, the motion is denied.

21

Sealing court records implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public

22

records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner

23

Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). The lack of opposition to a motion to

24

seal therefore does not automatically resolve it. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins.

25

Co., 331 F.3d 1128, 1130 & passim (9th Cir. 2003). Aside from “grand jury transcripts

26

and warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation,” a strong

27

presumption applies in favor of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City and

28

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, a party seeking
1
17-cv-555-L-NLS

1

to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of public

2

access by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178. The compelling

3

reasons standard applies to all motions except those that are only “tangentially related to

4

the merits of a case.” Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101

5

(9th Cir. 2016). Defendants' summary judgment motion is more than tangentially related

6

to the merits. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.

7

To meet its burden, the moving party must make a "particularized showing,"

8

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) and, further,

9

must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings
that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring
disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.
In turn, the court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of the
public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret. After
considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial
records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the
factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public's interest
in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such court files
might have become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of
records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous
statements, or release trade secrets. The mere fact that the production of
records may lead to a litigant's embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to
further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.

20
21
22

Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted).
Plaintiff points to a protective order (doc. no. 33) as the basis for the request. That

23

a document is designated confidential pursuant to a protective order is of little weight

24

when it comes to sealing documents which are filed with the Court. See San Jose

25

Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.(Saldivar), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999);

26

Beckman Indus. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th Cir. 1992); Confederated

27

Tribes of Siletz Indians of Or. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 340 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1121 (D. Or.

28

2003). By nature, protective orders are over inclusive, see Beckman, 966 F.2d at 476,
2
17-cv-555-L-NLS

1

because prior to signing, the judge typically does not have the opportunity to analyze

2

whether any particular document should be sealed. See San Jose Mercury News, 187

3

F.3d at 1103; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133. Whether a document designated as confidential

4

pursuant to a protective order should be sealed must therefore be determined de novo.

5

See Weyerhaeuser, 340 F. Supp. 2d at 1121. Plaintiff's reliance on the protective order is

6

insufficient to meet the compelling reasons standard for sealing court filings related to a

7

summary judgment motion.

8
9

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion is denied without prejudice to publicly
file redacted versions of the exhibits, and move to seal only the portions as to which a

10

particularized showing can be made.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: November 5, 2018

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-cv-555-L-NLS