Stahl v. Target Corporation

Filing 26

ORDER that 25 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal is denied without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 10/24/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

DEANNA STAHL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
TARGET CORPORATION,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:15-cv-01681-RFB-GWF
ORDER

12
13
14

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal
(ECF No. 25), filed on October 19, 2016.
There is generally “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State

15
16

Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Where a petitioner seeks to seal

17

documents or exhibits that are dispositive in nature, the petitioner must meet the higher standard of

18

showing “compelling reasons” for the documents to be sealed. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 565

19

F.3d 1106, 1115 n. 4 (9th Cir.2009); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

20

1178 (9th Cir.2006). The Court applies the higher “compelling reasons” standard to dispositive

21

motions, rather than the “good cause” standard, because “the resolution of a dispute on the merits,

22

whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public's

23

understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.” Dish Network L.L. C. v.

24

Sonicview USA, Inc., 2009 WL 2224596, *6 (S.D.Cal. July 23,2009) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

25

1179).

26

To meet the compelling reasons standard, the moving party “must overcome a strong

27

presumption of access by showing that compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings

28

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Dish Network

1

L.L.C., 2009 WL 2224596 at *7 (citing Pintos, 565 F.3d at 1116); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

2

1179–80. “Under the ‘compelling reasons' standard, a district court must weigh relevant factors, base

3

its decision on a compelling reason, and articulate a factual basis for its ruling without relying on

4

hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. “Relevant factors include the public interest in understanding the

5

judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for

6

scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Id.

7

The Court finds that Plaintiff has not met her burden here. Plaintiff seeks to file Exhibit 2 to

8

her opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment under seal pursuant to the stipulated

9

protective order entered between the parties. See ECF No. 12. Plaintiff represents that Exhibit 2

10

contains “documents pertaining to Defendant’s internal policies and procedures that arguably fell

11

under the parties’ stipulated protective order.” Motion for Leave (ECF No. 25), 3:24–26. However,

12

this bare bones explanation as to why Exhibit 2 is confidential does not justify an order from the

13

Court sealing Exhibit 2 to Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

14

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal

15

(ECF No. 25) is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff may file a revised motion that provides the

16

Court with sufficient “compelling reasons” to justify her request.

17

DATED this 24th day of October, 2016.

18
19
20

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2