Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Balle et al

Filing 467

ORDER Denying without prejudice 465 Motion to Seal. Plaintiff's shall file a renewed motion by 4/3/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 3/27/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

9
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
PETER MARIO BALLE, et al.,
13
Defendant(s).
14
15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:10-cv-02205-APG-NJK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Docket No. 465)

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to seal. Docket No. 465. For the reasons

16

discussed below, the motion to seal is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

17

I.

STANDARDS

18

The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records.

19

See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm

20

Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file documents under seal

21

bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678

22

(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). Parties “who seek to maintain the secrecy of

23

documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling

24

reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.1 Those compelling reasons must outweigh the

25
26
27
28

1

Motions for default judgment are considered dispositive for purposes of the Court’s sealing
analysis. See, e.g., Louisiana Pac. Corp. v. Money Market 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, 2013 WL 550563,
*1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2013) (finding motion for default judgment dispositive, and applying the “compelling
reasons” standard).

1

competing interests of the public in having access to the judicial records and understanding the judicial

2

process. Id. at 1178-79; see also Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 & n.6 (court must weigh “relevant factors,”

3

including the public’s interest in understanding the judicial process). Any sealing request must be

4

narrowly tailored. To the extent any confidential information can be redacted while leaving meaningful

5

information available to the public, the Court must order that redacted versions be filed rather than

6

sealing entire documents. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137.

7

The Ninth Circuit has indicated that “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s

8

interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become

9

a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public

10

scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.’” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing

11

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). On the other hand, “[t]he mere fact that

12

the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further

13

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179

14

(citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136).

15

A party’s burden to show compelling reasons for sealing is not met by general assertions that the

16

information is “confidential” or a “trade secret,” but rather the movant must “articulate compelling

17

reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Id. at 1178 (emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit has

18

expressly rejected efforts to seal documents under the “compelling reasons” standard where the movant

19

makes “conclusory statements about the contents of the documents–that they are confidential and that,

20

in general,” their disclosure would be harmful to the movant. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182; see also

21

Vaccine Ctr. LLC v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist Lexis 68298, *5-6 (D. Nev. May 14, 2013)

22

(finding insufficient general assertions regarding confidential nature of documents). Such “conclusory

23

offerings do not rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to

24

the documents.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. In allowing the sealing of a document, the Court must

25

“articulate the basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis and conjecture.” See, e.g., Pintos, 605

26

F.3d at 679 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). Moreover, the movant

27

must make that required particularized showing for each document that it seeks to seal. See, e.g., San

28

Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999).
2

1

II.

ANALYSIS

2

The pending motion to seal is deficient in numerous respects. First, Plaintiffs appear to rely on

3

the “good cause” standard applicable to non-dispositive motions. See Decl. of Eron Cannon ¶ 7. As

4

noted above, however, the more rigorous “compelling reasons” standard applies to the pending motion

5

to seal because the documents at issue relate to a motion for default judgment. See, e.g., Louisiana

6

Pacific, 2013 WL 550563, at *1. Second, a motion to seal cannot be based solely on conclusory

7

assertions. The pending motion asserts in general terms that the filed documents contain information

8

related to a settlement and “detail[] protected health information and confidential financial information.”

9

See Mot. at 4. Such conclusory assertions are insufficient to meet the compelling reasons standard. See,

10

e.g., Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Third, the pending motion seeks to seal 528 pages of briefing and

11

nearly 30 attached exhibits. In order to seal each of those documents, Plaintiffs must make a specific

12

factual showing that compelling reasons exist to seal each of those documents.

13

Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1103. The pending motion fails to do so. Fourth, where documents may

14

be redacted while leaving meaningful information available to the public, the Court will allow only

15

redaction of filed documents rather than outright sealing of the documents in their entirety. See, e.g.,

16

Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137. The pending motion fails to explain why redaction is not possible here, nor

17

does it provide a proposed redacted version of the filed documents.2

18

III.

See, e.g., San Jose

CONCLUSION

19

For the reasons discussed above, the motion to seal is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

20

Plaintiffs shall file a renewed motion in compliance with this order no later than April 3, 2014. The

21

renewed motion shall make a showing that sealing is appropriate as to each document for which sealing

22

is sought. The renewed motion shall specifically identify any of the filed documents for which sealing

23

is not sought. The renewed motion shall also include a submission of a proposed redacted version of

24

each document, as appropriate under the relevant standard. To the extent any other party seeks to keep

25

any information contained in Docket No. 466 sealed, they shall immediately contact Plaintiffs and shall

26
27
28

2

Where redaction of a document is at issue, the compelling reason analysis must be specific to the
actual information contained in the document for which redaction is sought.
3

1

join in the renewed motion to seal as appropriate. The documents filed at Docket No. 466 will remain

2

under seal until the Court can make a determination on the renewed motion. Failure to timely file the

3

renewed motion may result in the Court unsealing those documents.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: March 27, 2014

6
7

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4