Davis v. JP Morgan Chase Bank et al

Filing 36

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 32 plaintiff's motion to seal is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must seal 31 plaintiff's response to defendants motion for summary judgment. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must file a redacted copy of 31 the response by 7/30/18. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 7/18/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5

MARILYN A. DAVIS,

6
7
8

Case No. 2:17-cv-02259-RFB-CWH

Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, et al.,

9

Defendants.

10
11

Presently before the court is plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 32), filed on June 25,

12

2018. Defendants filed a response (ECF No. 34) on July 2, 2018, and plaintiff replied (ECF No.

13

35) on July 9, 2018.

14

Plaintiff requests leave to file her response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment

15

under seal, arguing that the attached exhibits contain unreacted personal identifiers. 1 Defendant

16

opposes the motion to seal, arguing that majority of the pages in plaintiff’s response do not

17

contain personal identifiers. Plaintiff replies with the specific pages that contain personal

18

information and requests the court to seal those pages.

19

The court recognizes a strong presumption in favor of the public’s right to access judicial

20

records. See Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)

21

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

22

pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments.”). An exception

23

exists for “[a] narrow range of documents” that are “traditionally . . . kept secret for important

24

policy reasons.” Id. The party moving to seal a dispositive motion must provide compelling

25

reasons to overcome the presumption. Id. The court then balances the interests of the public and

26

the interests of the moving party. Id. Exposure to embarrassment, incrimination, or further

27
28

1

The exhibits at issue are filed at ECF No. 31.

1

litigation, are not compelling reasons to seal a record. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331

2

F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003). Under Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

3

Local Rule IC 6-1, parties should partially redact personal-data identifiers from court filings.

4

Personal-identifiers include social security numbers, names of minor children, dates of birth,

5

financial account numbers, home addresses, and tax identification numbers. LR IC 6-1.

6

Here, the pages plaintiff identified contain a number of personal-data identifiers, including

7

plaintiff’s financial account numbers, social security number and tax identification number. The

8

court recognizes plaintiff’s interest in protecting her personal information, and therefore, the court

9

will order the Clerk of Court to seal ECF No. 31. However, the document at issue plays a vital

10

role “in the resolution of a dispute on the merits . . . [that] is at the heart of the interest in ensuring

11

the public’s understanding of the judicial process . . . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Thus,

12

plaintiff must refile a redacted version of ECF No. 31 for the public record pursuant to LR IC 6-1.

13
14
15
16
17
18

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF No. 32) is
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court must seal plaintiff’s response to
defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 31).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must file a redacted copy of the response (ECF
No. 31) by July 30, 2018.

19
20

DATED: July 18, 2018

21
22
23

C.W. HOFFMAN, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
Page 2 of 2