Le v. Bank of America, National Association et al

Filing 34

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 25 Defendant's Motion to File Documents Under Seal is granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 9/11/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10

HIEP D. LE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:16-cv-02393-RFB-GWF

ORDER

11
12

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF

13

No. 25), filed on August 23, 2017. To date, no party has filed an opposition to this motion and the

14

time for opposition has now expired.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

documents attached to dispositive motions. Id.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

citations and quotations omitted).

7

Defendant requests leave to file Exhibits 2 through 7 attached to its Motion for Summary

8

Judgment (ECF No. 30) under seal. Defendant represents that the documents contained in exhibits

9

2 through 6 are confidential policies and procedures manuals, which “contain proprietary

10

information on how Defendant processes and maintains its credit reporting procedures and how it

11

trains its employees.” Motion (ECF No. 25), pg. 4, lns. 20-21. This information, according to

12

Defendant, should be maintained under seal because public disclosure could aid Defendant’s

13

competitors in creating or enhancing upon Defendant’s polices and procedures, thereby destroying

14

Defendant’s competitive advantage. In addition, Defendant argues that the polices and procedures

15

manuals should be kept under seal because public disclosure could “open Equifax’s system to

16

potential identity theft by creating a high risk that the criminals would be able to develop methods to

17

successfully circumvent Equifax’s procedures.” Id. at pg. 5, lns. 14-16. Defendant also requests to

18

file Exhibit 7, the ACIS Maintenance Document that contains Plaintiff’s personal identifying

19

information, under seal. Id. at pg. 6.

20

On balance, the Court finds that Defendant has provided compelling reasons to justify an

21

order sealing Exhibits 2 through 7 to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Therefore, the

22

Court will allow Exhibit 2 through 7 to be filed under seal in their entirety. Accordingly,

23
24
25

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF
No. 25) is granted.
DATED this 11th day of September, 2017.

26
27
28

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge
2