Le v. Bank of America, National Association et al

Filing 35

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 27 Plaintiff's Motion to File Documents Under Seal is granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 9/12/17. (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 Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF

13

No. 27), filed on August 24, 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

Plaintiff requests leave to file Exhibit 12 attached to his Motion for Summary Judgment

8

(ECF No. 26) under seal. Plaintiff represents that this exhibit contains confidential, proprietary

9

business records of Defendant, which were produced pursuant to the stipulated Protective Order

10

(ECF No. 21). Motion (ECF No. 27), pg. 2. This is not a sufficient compelling reason to justify an

11

order from the Court sealing Exhibit 12. However, the Court will seal this Exhibit based on the

12

compelling reason found in Defendant’s Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 25). There,

13

Defendant requested, and the Court issued, an order to seal the exact same document because it

14

contains Plaintiff’s personal identifying information. See Order (ECF No. 34). Therefore, the

15

Court will allow Exhibit 12 to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment to be filed under seal in its

16

entirety. Accordingly,

17
18
19

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents Under Seal (ECF
No. 27) is granted.
DATED this 12th day of September, 2017.

20
21
22

______________________________________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2