Smith v. United States of America

Filing 10

ORDER Denying Defendant's Ex Parte Application to File an Administrative Record Under Seal [Doc. 8 ]. The application is denied without prejudice. The sealed lodged proposed document is stricken from the docket. [Doc. 9 ]. Signed by Judge Thomas J. Whelan on 10/27/2017. (lrf) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/27/2017: # 1 Rejected Document (Part 1 of 3), # 2 Stricken Document (Part 2 of 3), # 3 Stricken Document (Part 3 of 3)) (lrf).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERRY SMITH,

Case No.: 17-CV-1380 W (BGS)
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE
AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
UNDER SEAL [DOC. 8.]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

15
16

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s ex parte application to file an

17
18

administrative record under seal. [Doc. 8.] Defendant styles the one-page document as a

19

motion, but the Court interprets it as an ex parte application.1 The Court decides the

20

matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. For the reasons below,

21

Defendant’s application will be denied without prejudice.

22

//

23

//

24

//

25

//

26
27
1

28

If this was intended to be a noticed motion, Civ. L.R. 7.1(b) and Chambers Rule 3(a) would require
Defendant to obtain a hearing date prior to filing. Defendant did not obtain a hearing date.

1
17-CV-1380 W (BGS)

1

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

2

Federal law creates a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records.

3

But this right of access is not absolute. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court–

4

N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999). “Every court has supervisory

5

power over its own records and files[,]” and may provide access to court documents at its

6

discretion. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting

7

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). District courts

8

therefore have authority to seal and unseal court records, a power that derives from their

9

inherent supervisory power. See Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434.

10

When a district court is asked to seal court records in a civil case, the presumption

11

in favor of access can be overcome by a showing of “sufficiently important

12

countervailing interests.” See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102. The factors

13

relevant to determining whether this presumption has been overcome include the

14

“ ‘public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the

15

material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes

16

or infringement upon trade secrets.’ ” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434 (quoting EEOC v.

17

Erection Co., Inc., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990)). “After taking all relevant factors

18

into consideration, the district court must base its decision on a compelling reason and

19

articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id.

20

(citing Valley Broad. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir.

21

1986)).

22

As a natural consequence of the public’s right of access to records in civil cases,

23

the presumption of public access cannot be overcome by a mere stipulation of the parties.

24

As Judge Posner recognized, the district judge is duty-bound to scrutinize any request to

25

seal court documents and therefore “may not rubber stamp a stipulation to seal the

26

record.” Citizens First Nat. Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945

27

(7th Cir. 1999); accord City of Hartford v. Chase, 942 F.2d 130, 136 (1st Cir. 1991)

28
2
17-CV-1380 W (BGS)

1

(“[T]he trial court—not the parties themselves—should scrutinize every such agreement

2

involving the sealing of court papers and what, if any, of them are to be sealed . . . .”).

3
4

II.

5

DISCUSSION
Defendant seeks to seal an entire administrative record—486 pages—because it

6

“contains private information.” (Def.’s Ex Parte App. [Doc. 8] 1:19–20.) It does not

7

explain what sort of private information might appear in these documents that might

8

serve as the factual basis for a “compelling reason” to seal a court record. See Hagestad

9

49 F.3d at 1434. In fact, it provides no further information of any kind. Without such a

10

compelling reason, the presumptive right of public access controls. See San Jose

11

Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102.

12
13

III.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

14

The application is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. [Doc. 8.]

15

The sealed lodged proposed document is STRICKEN from the docket. [Doc. 9.]

16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 27, 2017

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
17-CV-1380 W (BGS)