Copenhaver et al v. Cavagna North America, Inc. et al

Filing 190

ORDERED: Motions (Docs. 130, 145, 187) are DENIED without prejudice. The parties may refile their motions in compliance with L.R. 5.2(d) by explaining why including the document in the public record is not appropriate, and either (1) state why it is not feasible to file a redacted version of the document in the public record, or (2) be accompanied by a redacted version of the document filed in the public record. Signed by Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan on 2/16/2021. (HEG)

Case 1:19-cv-00071-SPW-TJC Document 190 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
BILLINGS DIVISION
TODD COPENHAVER and AMBER
COPENHAVER,
Plaintiffs,

CV 19-71-BLG-SPW-TJC
ORDER

vs.
CAVAGNA GROUP S.p.A OMECA
DIVISION, AMERIGAS PROPANE,
L.P., ALBERTSONS, LLC., and DOES
1-10,
Defendants.
Before the Court are Plaintiffs Todd and Amber Copenhaver and Defendant
Cavagna Group S.p.A. Omeca Division’s respective Motions to File Documents
Under Seal. (Docs. 130, 145, 187.)
The starting point for motions to seal in the Ninth Circuit is a “strong
presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance
Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.2003)). “A party seeking to seal a judicial
record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the
‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135); Ruffner v.
Ken Blanchard Companies, Inc., 2017 WL 11423946, at *1 (D. Mont. Nov. 16,

Case 1:19-cv-00071-SPW-TJC Document 190 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2

2017). This standard requires the party to “articulate compelling reasons supported
by specific factual findings, such that they outweigh the general history of access
and the public policy favoring disclosure.” Id. Local Rules 1.3 and 5.2 embody
the Ninth Circuit’s compelling reasons standard.
Here, the motions fail to comply with L.R. 5.2(d)’s provisions. In Plaintiffs’
first motion to seal (Doc. 130), no reason is given for sealing the five requested
documents other than to state they “fall within existing protective stipulations.” In
their second motion (Doc. 145), Plaintiffs cite to L.R. 5.2 but provide no reason
why inclusion in the public record is not appropriate. Defendant’s motion (Doc.
187) fails for the same reason. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions (Docs. 130, 145, 187) are
DENIED without prejudice. The parties may refile their motions in compliance
with L.R. 5.2(d) by explaining why including the document in the public record is
not appropriate, and either (1) state why it is not feasible to file a redacted version
of the document in the public record, or (2) be accompanied by a redacted version
of the document filed in the public record.
IT IS ORDERED.
DATED this 16th day of February, 2021.
_______________________________
TIMOTHY J. CAVAN
United States Magistrate Judge