Oliner v. Kontrabecki, No. 12-15107 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed the district court's order denying the parties' joint request to seal the entire record of bankruptcy proceedings before the district court. The parties sought to seal the record of proceedings on an interlocutory appeal taken from the bankruptcy court, which the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The district court rejected the parties' argument that the "good cause" standard applied and held that the "compelling reasons" standard governed the decision to seal the record of the proceedings. The court agreed, concluding that the rationale for the "good cause" standard did not apply in this case and that the district court properly invoked the "compelling reasons" standard in considering the sealing request. In this case, the only reasons provided for sealing the records - to avoid embarrassment or annoyance to defendant and to prevent an undue burden on his professional endeavors - were not "compelling," particularly because the proceedings had been a matter of public record since at least 2004. Defendant has not pointed to any compelling reasons that overcome the strong presumption in favor of maintaining public access to court records. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Bankruptcy. The panel affirmed the district court’s order denying the parties’ joint request to seal the record of proceedings on an interlocutory appeal taken from the bankruptcy court. The panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in deciding not to seal the judicial record. The district court properly invoked the “compelling reasons” standard, rather than the “good cause” standard, in considering the sealing request because the parties sought to seal the entire record of the proceedings in the district court, including the court’s opinion. The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that no compelling reasons overcame the strong presumption in favor of maintaining public access to court records.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.