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

Filing 9

ORDER Granting 6 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 11/7/2017. (lrf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAMS & COCHRANE, LLP,

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

QUECHAN TRIBE OF THE FORT
YUMA INDIAN RESERVATION, a
federally-recognized Indian Tribe;
ROBERT ROSETTE; ROSETTE &
ASSOCIATES, PC; ROSETTLE, LLP;
RICHARD ARMSTRONG; KEENY
ESCALANTI, SR.; MARK WILLIAM
WHITE, II, also known as WILLIE
WHITE; and DOES 1 THROUGH 10,

15
16
17
18
19
20

[ECF No. 6]

Defendants.

21
22

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s ex parte motion to seal select portions of its

23

complaint and certain exhibits attached to the complaint. (ECF No. 6.) The Court denied

24

a previous motion by Plaintiff to seal this case and the complaint. (See ECF No. 3.) For

25

the reasons explained below, the Court now GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to file its

26

complaint with redactions, and ACCEPTS the complaint filed at ECF No. 5.

27

//

28
1
3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD

1

I.

2

Plaintiff first filed this action on July 16, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) The case arises out

Background

3

of an attorney-client fee agreement that Plaintiff entered into with Defendant Quechan

4

Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation (“the Tribe”). (ECF No. 3 at 2.) Plaintiff’s

5

claims arise from the Tribe allegedly terminating Plaintiff as the Tribe’s counsel three

6

days prior to the date on which the Tribe was set to sign a compact with the State of

7

California. (Id.) Plaintiff moved to file the case and the complaint under seal. (ECF No.

8

2.) The court denied the motion on August 17, 2017, explaining that sealing the case and

9

or the entire complaint was unwarranted. (ECF No. 3.) While the Court agreed that it

10

was appropriate to seal privileged attorney-client information, attorney work-product, and

11

confidential information about the Tribe’s negotiations with the State of California, it was

12

not persuaded that the existence of such information within the complaint warranted

13

sealing the entire complaint, let alone the case. (Id. at 4.) The Court explained that

14

“Plaintiff has offered no compelling reason why every paragraph in its 91-page complaint

15

and why each of its thirty-nine exhibits must be filed under seal.” (Id.) The Court

16

explained, however, that “to the extent that Plaintiff wishes to protect the confidential and

17

privileged information contained within the complaint, it must redact those portions of

18

the complaint (and those portions of the exhibits).” (Id.)

19

On September 19, 2017, Plaintiff refiled its complaint with several redactions.

20

(ECF No. 5.) Along with the complaint, Plaintiff has filed a motion to seal in which it

21

asks the Court to approve the redacted complaint as filed (ECF No. 6), and lodged with

22

the Court an unredacted version of the complaint (ECF No. 7). The Court finds that the

23

redactions are appropriate to prevent the disclosure of confidential attorney-client

24

communications, attorney work-product, and confidential negotiations between the Tribe

25

and the State of California.

26

II.

27

Under common law and the First Amendment, there is a presumptive right of

28

Legal Standard

public access to court records. See Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597
2
3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD

1

(1978). “Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong

2

presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of

3

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–80 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

4

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking to seal a judicial record

5

must articulate justifications that outweigh the historical right of access and the public

6

policies favoring disclosure. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

7

Parties seeking to seal documents in a dispositive motion must meet the high

8

threshold requiring “compelling reasons” with specific factual findings to support a

9

sealing. Id. at 1178–80. However, for non-dispositive motions, the parties must show a

10

lesser “particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard pursuant to Federal Rule

11

of Civil Procedure 26(c). Id. at 1180. The “compelling reasons” test requires showing

12

more than just “good cause.” Id. Documents filed under seal will be limited to only

13

those documents, or portions thereof, necessary to protect such sensitive information.

14

Although the “Ninth Circuit has yet to specify whether a party seeking to seal a

15

complaint . . . must meet the ‘compelling reasons’ or ‘good cause’ standard,” see Harrell

16

v. Cal. Forensic Med. Grp., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00579-KJN-P, 2015 WL 1405567, *1 (E.D.

17

Cal. Mar. 26, 2015), district courts generally conclude that the “compelling reasons”

18

standard applies because the complaint initiates the civil action. See, e.g., Robert Half

19

Int’l v. Ainsworth, 2015 WL 4394805, *3 n.2 (S.D. Cal. July 15, 2015). The Court

20

agrees and applies the “compelling reasons” standard to Plaintiff’s request to redact

21

portions of its complaint.

22

III.

23

Plaintiff asserts that its redactions in the filed complaint are limited to confidential

Discussion

24

information arising from confidential attorney-client communications, attorney work-

25

product, and confidential negotiations between the Tribe and the State of California.

26

After reviewing the voluminous complaint and its exhibits, the Court confirms that the

27

proposed redactions are limited to these three types of information.

28

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that protection against disclosure of these three
3
3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD

1

types of information is a compelling reason that rebuts the presumption of public access.

2

First, privileged attorney-client communications are considered “archetypical examples

3

material that has traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons.” Lambright

4

v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808, 820 (9th Cir. 2012). Because such information is one that has

5

“traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons,” redacting such information

6

from the complaint is warranted. Id.; see also Hanson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.,

7

2013 WL 5674997, *3 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 17, 2013) (“Courts generally accept attorney-

8

client privilege and the work-product-doctrine as a ‘compelling reason’ justifying a

9

motion to seal.”).

10

Second, preventing the disclosure of attorney work-product is also a compelling

11

reason to prevent public access to such information. “The purpose of the work product

12

doctrine is to protect an attorney’s mental processes so that the attorney can analyze and

13

prepare for the client’s case without interference from an opponent.” 6 Moore’s Fed.

14

Prac., Civil § 26.70(1). The Court follows the lead of other district courts in this circuit

15

who have found that preventing disclosure of work-product is a compelling reason to

16

restrict public access to court documents. See, e.g., Hanson, 2013 WL 5674997, at *3;

17

Asdale v. Int’l Game Tech., No. 3:04-cv-703-RAM, 2010 WL 2161930, at *5 (D. Nev.

18

May 28, 2010).

19

Finally, Plaintiff asserts that preventing the disclosure of confidential negotiations

20

between the Tribe and the State of California is a compelling reason to restrict public

21

access to its complaint. The Court agrees. See Kalinauskas v. Wong, 151 F.R.D. 363,

22

365 (D. Nev. 1993) (“The secrecy of a settlement agreement and the contractual rights of

23

the parties thereunder deserve court protection.”). As indicated by the declaration

24

attached to Plaintiff’s motion to seal, the State of California had always maintained that

25

the negotiations between it and the Tribe were to be kept “strictly confidential.” (ECF

26

No. 6-1 at 2–3 ¶ 4.)

27

IV.

28

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has offered sufficient reason to warrant its

Conclusion

4
3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD

1

proposed redactions to its complaint and attached exhibits. As a result, the Court

2

GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to seal and accepts Plaintiff’s redacted amended complaint.

3

The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to file, under seal, the lodged unredacted

4

copy of Plaintiff’s amended complaint. (ECF No. 7.)

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: November 7, 2017

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
3:17-cv-01436-GPC-MDD