Kalberer v. American Family
Filing
99
ORDER that 95 Motion to Seal is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on the public docket, no later than November 12, 2014, a redacted version of the reply brief and the entirety of Exhibits 2 and 3. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/5/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
9
10
JESSE KALBERER,
11
Plaintiff(s),
12
vs.
13
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
14
Defendant(s).
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:13-cv-02278-JCM-NJK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
SEAL
(Docket No. 95)
16
Pending before the Court is a motion to seal related to Plaintiff’s reply brief to the motion for
17
reconsideration. Docket No. 95 (motion to seal); see also Docket No. 96 (reply brief). Defendant filed
18
a declaration in support of the sealing, as well as a response to the motion. Docket Nos. 95-2, 97. The
19
Court finds this matter properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons
20
discussed below, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion to seal in part and DENIES it in part.
21
I.
STANDARDS
22
The Ninth Circuit has held that there is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records.
23
See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Foltz v. State Farm
24
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file documents under seal
25
bears the burden of overcoming that presumption. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678
26
(9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). Parties “who seek to maintain the secrecy of
27
documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling
28
reasons’ support secrecy.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Those compelling reasons must outweigh the
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). The Ninth Circuit has indicated
4
that “‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing
5
court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes.’”
6
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
7
Importantly, the Ninth Circuit has also made clear that the sealing of entire documents is
8
improper when any confidential information can be redacted while leaving meaningful information
9
available to the public. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003);
10
see also In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011)
11
(even where material is shown to be properly sealed, “a court must still consider whether redacting
12
portions of the discovery material will nevertheless allow disclosure”).
13
II.
14
15
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has filed under seal a reply brief, and the three exhibits attached thereto. The Court will
address each document separately below.
16
A.
Exhibit 1, Personnel Records
17
Exhibit 1 to the reply brief consists of the personnel records of two non-party employees of
18
Defendant. See Docket No. 96-1. Defendant argues that compelling reasons exist to seal that exhibit
19
because these non-party employees have a significant privacy interest in these records that outweighs
20
the public’s interest to access to those documents. See Docket No. 95-2. The Court agrees. “[C]ourts
21
have recognized the significant interest of non-party employees in keeping their employment files . . .
22
secret.” Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech. Co., 2013 WL 5923426, *2 (D. Nev. Nov. 1, 2013) (citing Triquint
23
Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Techs., Ltd., 2011 WL 4947343, *3, 5 (D. Ariz. Oct. 18, 2011)). In this
24
case, that privacy interest outweighs the public’s right to access. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the
25
motion to seal as to Exhibit 1.
26
B.
Reply Brief
27
Plaintiff also filed under seal the entirety of the reply brief itself. See Docket No. 96. Plaintiff
28
did so based on quotations from Exhibit 1 on a few pages of the brief. See Docket No. 95 at 3. Neither
2
1
party has provided any reasonable explanation as to why the entirety of the reply brief must be sealed,
2
rather than merely redacting its recitation of sensitive information from Exhibit 1. The court finds that
3
redaction of that information can be easily accomplished, leaving the remainder of the brief publicly
4
available. Accordingly, as to the reply brief itself, the motion to seal is GRANTED in part and
5
DENIED in part. The entirety of the brief cannot be sealed, but the Court will allow redaction of
6
recitation of sensitive information from Exhibit 1.
7
C.
Exhibits 2, 3
8
Plaintiff also filed under seal Exhibits 2 and 3 attached to the reply brief. See Docket Nos. 96-2,
9
96-3. No showing of any kind has been made that sealing those exhibits is proper. Accordingly, the
10
motion to seal is DENIED with respect to Exhibits 2 and 3.
11
III.
CONCLUSION
12
For the reasons discussed more fully above, the motion to seal is GRANTED in part and
13
DENIED in part. Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file on the public docket, no later than November
14
12, 2014, a redacted version of the reply brief and the entirety of Exhibits 2 and 3.
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
DATED: November 5, 2014
17
18
______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?