Backman et al v. Goggin et al

Filing 131

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 129 Plaintiffs' Motion to Seal is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall immediately file a redacted copy of the motion for summary judgment on the public docket. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 10/26/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

IRVING A. BACKMAN, et al.,

8
9
10

v.

Case No. 2: 16-cv-01108-JCM-PAL
Plaintiffs,
ORDER

CHRISTOPHER M. GOGGIN, et al.,

(Mot. to Seal – ECF No. 129)

Defendants.

11
12

This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 129). This Motion

13

is referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local

14

Rules of Practice.

15

As a general matter, there is a strong presumption of access to judicial records. Kamakana

16

v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “In keeping with the strong

17

public policy favoring access to court records, most judicial records may be sealed only if the court

18

finds ‘compelling reasons’.” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025–26 (9th Cir. 2014)

19

(citing Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir. 2010)). However, public

20

“access to judicial records is not absolute.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. The Ninth Circuit has

21

held that the strong presumption of access to judicial records “applies fully to dispositive

22

pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments.” Id. at 1179. Thus,

23

a movant must show “compelling reasons” to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.

24

Id. (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). In general,

25

compelling reasons exist when court records might become a vehicle for improper purposes, “such

26

as to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, commit libel, or release trade secrets.” In re

27

Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 429 (9th Cir. 2011).

28
1

1

The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that the sealing of entire documents is improper when

2

any confidential information can be redacted while leaving meaningful information available to

3

the public. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137. To the extent that a sealing order is permitted, it must be

4

narrowly tailored. See, e.g., Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Ct. of Cal., Riverside Cnty., 464

5

U.S. 501, 512 (1984). The Supreme Court has instructed that a sealing order should be “limited

6

to information that was actually sensitive,” that is only the parts of the material necessary to protect

7

the compelling interest. Id. Thus, even where a court determines that disclosure of information

8

may result in particularized harm, and the private interest in protecting the material outweighs the

9

public interest in disclosure, a court must still consider whether redacting confidential portions of

10

the material will leave meaningful information available to the public. In re Roman Catholic

11

Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d at 425 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136–37).

12

Plaintiffs’ Motion (ECF No. 129) seeks leave to file under seal their motion for summary

13

judgment and the related exhibits. See Pl.’s Sealed Mot. Summ. J. (ECF No. 130) (attaching

14

Appendix of Exhibits (ECF No. 130-1)).1 The Protective Order (ECF No. 59) entered in this case

15

governing confidentiality obligates Plaintiffs to seek leave to file the confidential documents under

16

seal.

17

information, financial records, intellectual property, and trade secrets. Pursuant to the protective

18

1

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs state that the motion and exhibits involve highly confidential proprietary

The court notes that the Appendix of Exhibits (ECF No. 130-1) fails to comply with the Local Rules’
requirements that: exhibits or attachments “be attached as separate files.” LR IC 2-2(a)(3)(A). Electronic
filers are prohibited from combining exhibits into one PDF document and then filing that single PDF as the
“main document” in CM/ECF’s document upload screen. Id. (exhibits “must not be filed as part of the base
document in the electronic filing system”). This is particularly problematic when portions of a filing may
be sealed because this practice makes it impossible for the Clerk of the Court to seal or unseal specific
documents as needed since the docketing clerks cannot separate the pages for sealing purposes. See LR IA
10-5(b). Instead, the Local Rules require litigants to save each document or exhibit they want sealed as a
separate PDF document and then file each PDF in CM/ECF’s document upload screen as “attachments” to
a main document. The shortcut of filing only one PDF inevitably causes additional work for the court,
docketing clerks, and the parties. Should leave to file under seal be granted for some but not all documents,
the court must then order litigants to refile the sealed and unsealed documents separately, rather than simply
instructing the docketing clerks to seal or unseal the documents in accordance with the court’s findings.
Failure to follow the Local Rules of Practice and CM/ECF filing requirements will delay and
complicate the court’s review of the docket. Counsel are responsible for informing themselves and
instructing their staff regarding the correct electronic filing procedures. The parties are encouraged to
contact the CM/ECF Helpdesk at [phone] prior to filing should they have any technical questions.
For additional direction, the parties may also refer to the updated procedures in CM/ECF Version 4.0
Enhancements and Changes, which is available on the court’s website. The parties are cautioned that the
court may strike from the record any prospective filings that fail to comply with the Local Rules.

2

1

order, Plaintiffs seek leave to preserve the confidentiality of such information and will publicly

2

file a redacted copy of the motion for summary judgment.

3

Having reviewed and considered the matter in accordance with the Ninth Circuit’s

4

directives set forth in Kamakana and its progeny, the court finds that the parties have met their

5

burden of establishing compelling reasons for the unredacted motion for summary judgment and

6

the related exhibits to remain under seal. Plaintiffs narrowly tailored the sealing requests to the

7

extent possible by agreeing to file a redacted version of the summary judgment motion on the

8

public docket.

9

Accordingly,

10

IT IS ORDERED:

11

1. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Seal (ECF No. 129) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN

12
13
14
15
16
17

PART.
2. The unredacted Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 130) and Appendix of
Exhibits (ECF No. 130-1) shall remain under seal.
3. Plaintiffs shall immediately file a redacted copy of the motion for summary judgment
on the public docket.
Dated this 26th day of October, 2017.

18
19
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3