Allbaugh v. California Field Ironworkers Pension Trust et al

Filing 165

ORDER that 156 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal is denied without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that 162 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 12/23/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

DONALD ALLBAUGH, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
CALIFORNIA FIELD IRONWORKERS PENSION)
TRUST, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:12-cv-00561-JAD-GWF
ORDER

14
15

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to File Documents Under Seal in

16

Support of its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#156), filed on December

17

21, 2015. Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to File

18

Documents at Tabs 31, 33 & Portion of Tab 36 to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for

19

Summary Judgment Under Seal (#162), filed on December 21, 2015.

20

The Ninth Circuit comprehensively examined the presumption of public access to judicial

21

files and records in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).

22

There, the court recognized that different interests are at stake in preserving the secrecy of materials

23

produced during discovery and materials attached to dispositive motions. The Kamakana court

24

held that a “good cause” showing is sufficient to seal documents produced during discovery. Id. at

25

1180. However, the Kamakana decision also held that a showing of “compelling reasons” is

26

needed to support the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions. A showing of “good

27

cause” does not, without more, satisfy the “compelling reasons” test required to maintain the

28

secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions. Id. The court found that:

1

6

Different interests are at stake with the right of access than with
Rule 26(c); with the former, the private interests of the litigants are
not the only weights on the scale. Unlike private materials unearthed
during discovery, judicial records are public documents almost by
definition, and the public is entitled to access by default. (Citation
omitted). This fact sharply tips the balance in favor of production
when a document formally sealed for good cause under Rule 26(c)
becomes part of the judicial record. Thus, a “good cause” showing
alone will not suffice to fulfill the “compelling reasons” standard that
a party must meet to rebut the presumption of access to dispositive
pleadings and attachments.

7

Id. Kamakana recognized that “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interests in

8

disclosure and justify sealing records exist when court records may be used to gratify private spite,

9

permit public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. Id. at 1179 (internal

2
3
4
5

10

quotations omitted). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a

11

litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more,

12

compel the court to seal its records.” Id., citing, Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance

13

Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 1995). To justify sealing documents attached to

14

dispositive motions, a party is required to present articulable facts identifying the interests favoring

15

continuing secrecy and show that these specific interests overcome the presumption of public

16

access by outweighing the public’s interests in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1181

17

(internal citations and quotations omitted).

18

Defendants’ Motion (#156) represents that the Declaration of Leanne Vance and

19

Declaration of Zoe S. Moskowitz, attached as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, respectively, to its

20

Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, have been designated “Confidential”

21

pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Confidentiality Order (#25) entered in this case, and thus

22

should be filed under seal. Defendants assert that these documents contain “information from a

23

participant’s pension file and notices prepared in the course of scope of management of the pension

24

trust related to the changes made to the pension plan.” Motion to File Documents Under Seal

25

(#156). The Court finds that this is not a “compelling reason” that would justify an order sealing

26

the requested documents.

27
28

Plaintiff’s Motion (#162) represents that documents at Tab 31, Tab 33, and a portion of Tab
36 have been deemed “Confidential” pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Confidentiality Order
2

1

(#25), and accordingly should be filed under seal. Plaintiff failed to provide the Court with any

2

“compelling reason” why these documents should be filed under seal.

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to File Documents Under Seal in

5

Support of its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#156) is denied without

6

prejudice. Defendants may file a supplemental motion that complies with the Kamakana standard.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to

8

File Documents at Tabs 31, 33 & Portion of Tab 36 to Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’

9

Motion for Summary Judgment Under Seal (#162) is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a

10
11

supplemental motion that complies with the Kamakana standard.
DATED this 23rd day of December, 2015.

12
13
14

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

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