Watts et al v. Washington Mutual Bank, FA et al
Filing
74
ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 60 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
DAVID A. WATTS and BARBARA I. WATTS, )
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
v.
)
)
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A, U.S. BANK )
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, CALIFORNIA )
)
RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION and
)
DOES 1-50,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
Case No.: 5:11-cv-02780-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS FILED WITH
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before the Court is the parties’ motion to seal related to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial
summary judgment, both of which were filed on July 5, 2012.
21
Historically, courts have recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and
22
documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
23
589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). Unless a particular court record is one “traditionally kept secret,” a “strong
24
presumption in favor of access” is the starting point. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance
25
Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears
26
the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard.
27
Id. at 1135. That is, the party must “articulate[ ] compelling reasons supported by specific factual
28
findings,” id. (citing San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102-03 (9th
1
Case No.: 11-CV-02780-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
1
Cir.1999)), that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure,
2
such as the “ ‘public interest in understanding the judicial process.’ ” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434
3
(quoting EEOC v. Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990)).
4
The Ninth Circuit has explained that the “strong presumption of access to judicial records
5
applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related
6
attachments” because “the resolution of a dispute on the merits, whether by trial or summary
7
judgment, is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the “public’s understanding of the judicial
8
process and of significant public events.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
9
1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 2006). The Ninth Circuit has also carved out an exception to the strong
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
presumption of openness for pre-trial, non-dispositive motions. The Ninth Circuit applies a “good
11
cause” showing to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. Id. at 1180. Thus the
12
Court applies a two tiered approach: “judicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated]
13
differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain the
14
secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that
15
‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy” while a showing of good cause will suffice at earlier stages
16
of litigation. Id.
17
As Judge Alsup explained in Oracle America v. Google, Inc., 10-CV-03561-WHA, at ECF
18
No. 540, “The United States district court is a public institution, and the workings of litigation must
19
be open to public view. Pretrial submissions are a part of trial.” Accordingly, Judge Alsup advised
20
counsel that “unless they identify a limited amount of exceptionally sensitive information that truly
21
deserves protection, the motions will be denied outright.” Id.
22
The parties have requested to seal three documents because they are labeled “confidential.”
23
Based on the Court’s review of the documents, nothing in them meets the compelling reason
24
standard and thus deserves sealing. Accordingly, the motion to seal is DENIED with prejudice.
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
26
Dated: August 22, 2012
27
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-02780-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
