Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation et al

Filing 372

Order Denying Parties Motions To Seal In Connection With Summary Judgment Briefing - denying 320 Motion to File Documents Under Seal; denying 324 Motion to File Documents Under Seal; denying 326 Motion to File Documents Under Seal; denying 341 Motion to File Documents Under Seal; denying 345 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by District Judge Robert S. Huie on 7/14/2022. (ave)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAMS & COCHRANE, LLP,
Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ROBERT ROSETTE, et al.,

15

Case No.: 17-CV-1436-RSH-DEB
ORDER DENYING PARTIES’
MOTIONS TO SEAL IN
CONNECTION WITH SUMMARY
JUDGMENT BRIEFING

Defendants.

[ECF Nos. 320, 324, 326, 341, 345]

16
17
18

Plaintiff, along with Defendants Rosette & Associates, PC; Rosette, LLP; Robert

19

Rosette (“Rosette Defendants”); and the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian

20

Reservation (“Tribe,” and collectively with Plaintiff and Rosette Defendants, the

21

“Movants”) have filed five motions to seal in connection with their summary judgment

22

briefing: (i) the Rosette Defendants’ September 9, 2020 motion to seal in connection with

23

their summary judgment motion, ECF No. 320, (ii) Plaintiff’s September 17, 2020

24

motion to seal in connection with its motions for summary judgment against the Rosette

25

Defendants and the Tribe, ECF No. 324, (iii) the Tribe’s September 17, 2020 motion to

26

seal in connection with its summary judgment motion, ECF No. 326, (iv) the Rosette

27

Defendants’ October 16, 2020 motion to seal portions of their opposition brief in

28

response to Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion and their response to Plaintiff’s
1
17-CV-1436-RSH-DEB

1

separate statement of undisputed material facts, ECF No. 341, and (v) the Tribe’s October

2

16, 2020 motion to seal portions of its opposition brief in response to Plaintiff’s summary

3

judgment motion and its response to Plaintiff’s separate statement of undisputed material

4

facts, ECF No. 345 (collectively, the “Motions”).

5

There is a presumptive right of public access to court records based upon the

6

common law and the First Amendment. See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589,

7

597 (1978); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,

8

1212-13 (9th Cir. 2002). A party must demonstrate “compelling reasons,” supported by

9

“specific factual findings” to seal a document in connection with a dispositive motion,

10

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); Pintos v.

11

Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

12

The Motions fail to demonstrate “compelling reasons” to seal any of the referenced

13

documents. The sole justification Movants provide for sealing documents referenced in

14

their summary judgment briefing is that another party in the case designated those

15

documents as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential.” See ECF No. 320-1 at 1

16

(indicating Rosette Defendants “take[] no position” on sealing exhibit and only seek to

17

“provide the [other] parties with an opportunity to provide justification for its sealing if

18

any party has a compelling interest in doing so”); id. at 2 (noting Rosette Defendants

19

“take[] no position” on sealing documents Plaintiff marked confidential); ECF No. 326-1

20

at 1-2 (indicating Tribe “takes no position” on sealing documents Plaintiff designated as

21

confidential); ECF No. 341-1 at 1-2 (noting Rosette Defendants “take[] no position” on

22

sealing documents Plaintiff designated as confidential); ECF No. 345-1 at 1-2 (indicating

23

Tribe “takes no position” on sealing documents Plaintiff designated as confidential).

24

Plaintiff also moves to seal three exhibits with redactions because “this Court previously

25

approved and allowed [them] to be filed under seal.” ECF No. 324 at 1. But Plaintiff

26

“expresses no position” on whether sealing is still warranted. Id. These statements are not

27

“specific factual findings” establishing a “compelling reason,” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678, to

28

seal the referenced material.
2
17-CV-1436-RSH-DEB

1

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby DENIES the Motions. Within fourteen (14)

2

days of the date of this Order, the Movants shall meet and confer with the party

3

designating the referenced material as confidential to determine whether the designating

4

party maintains there are compelling reasons to file the material under seal. If so, the

5

designating party may file an additional motion to seal within twenty-one (21) days of the

6

date of this Order and also file—as a “sealed lodged proposed document,” in accordance

7

with Section 2(j) of the ECF Manual—a non-public, unredacted version that highlights

8

any specific proposed redactions in yellow for the Court’s consideration. If the

9

designating party does not timely file a motion to seal, the Court may order that the

10

document be filed in the public record. The Court recognizes that this action was only

11

recently transferred and directs the parties to follow the sealing procedures outlined in the

12

undersigned’s individual chambers rules in the future.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 14, 2022

____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

17-CV-1436-RSH-DEB