United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Dominic W. Lanza, United Slates District Judge.
Pending
before the Court are the Joint Motion to Seal Exhibits to
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 127) and the Joint Motion to Seal Exhibits to
Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc.
130). For the reasons stated below, both motions are denied
without prejudice.
The
public has a general right to inspect judicial records and
documents, such that a party seeking to seal a judicial
record must overcome “a strong presumption in favor of
access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). To do so,
the party must “articulate compelling reasons supported
by specific factual findings that outweigh the general
history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure
. . . .” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). The Court must then
“conscientiously balance the competing interests of the
public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial
records secret.” Id. at 1179 (internal
quotation marks omitted). “After considering these
interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial
records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and
articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying
on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal
quotation marks omitted).
The
“stringent” compelling reasons standard applies
to all filed motions and their attachments where the motion
is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a
case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp.,
LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). A motion
for full or partial summary judgment is clearly such a
motion, and the parties recognize that the “compelling
reasons” standard applies to the documents they seek
leave to seal. (Doc. 127 at 1; Doc. 130 at 2.)
The
parties have asked the Court to order that
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants may lodge Plaintiffs'
Exhibits 5, 16-19, 23- 29, 32, 34-37, 41, 43-44, and 51 under
seal. (Doc. 127 at 3.) The parties described the documents in
broad strokes, but for most of the documents, the only reason
provided to the Court to justify sealing them was that
“[t]he parties believe that the sensitive nature of
this personal and business information presents compelling
reasons to seal these exhibits.” (Id. at 2.)
The Court cannot draw any factual conclusions from this
vague, generalized statement. The parties noted that “a
non-party” was promised that two of the documents
(Exhibits 41 and 44) would not become public, and an
additional document (Exhibit 34) “contains an express
confidentiality provision.” (Id.) The Court
does not find these to be compelling reasons to seal these
documents.
The
parties have also asked the Court to order that Defendants
may lodge a slew of exhibits, which were not separately
listed but rather included in a chart containing some
exhibits which the parties wished to have leave to file under
seal and others that the parties to do not seek to have
sealed. (Doc. 130 at 2, Exh. A.) The parties give no reason
for sealing any of these documents, other than the same
vague, generalized statement that “[t]he parties
believe that the sensitive nature of this personal and
business information presents compelling reasons to seal
these exhibits.” (Id. at 2.)
The
parties have not attempted to “articulate
compelling reasons supported by specific factual
findings that outweigh the general history of access and
the public policies favoring disclosure . . . .”
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (emphasis added).
Moreover, the Court notes that at least some of the exhibits
the parties seek leave to file under seal seem so innocuous
that the Court wonders what interest the parties have in
maintaining secrecy. (See, e.g., Doc. 130 at Exh.
70.)
Thus,
the motions are denied without prejudice. To the extent that
the parties wish to try again, they must include-for
each document they wish to file under seal-a
specific description of the document and compelling reasons
for sealing that document, supported by specific facts. The
more specific and compelling the reasons and facts provided
are, the more likely it is that the Court will find that
compelling reasons justify sealing the documents.
Furthermore, any proposed order granting relief should
list the exhibits the parties seek leave to seal,
rather than referencing the motion or an exhibit to the
motion.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice the
Joint Motion to Seal Exhibits to
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 127) and the Joint Motion to Seal Exhibits to
Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doc.
130).
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(e),
the lodged documents will not be filed, but will remain under
seal. The Court will extend the time provided by LRCiv 5.6(e)
for the parties to act. The parties may, within 15
days of the entry of this Order, (1) confer and
agree to remove the confidential designation from the
exhibits previously designated confidential, and refile the
motions for summary judgment, containing all exhibits in
unsealed form, in the public record, (2) file new drafts of
the motions for summary judgment in the public record,
including and ...