United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
Honorable Roslyn O. Silver Senior United States District
Judge.
Before
the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Doc. 214).
Plaintiff states that Exhibits “F” (Doc. 211-7)
and “I” (Doc. 211-10) attached to Plaintiff's
Statement of Facts in Support of His Motion for Summary
Judgment Re: Use of Third-Party VPN Contracts By Progressive
(Doc. 211) were marked as confidential materials by
Defendants. (Doc. 214 at 1-2.) Plaintiff also states that
Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Use of
Third-Party VPN Contracts by Progressive (Doc. 210)
references these two confidential exhibits. Id. at
2. Plaintiff believes the mere marking of documents as
confidential entitles him to file these documents under seal.
The Court will deny the motion as to Documents 210, 211,
211-1-211-6, and 211-8-211-11 and grant the motion as to
Document 211-7 for the following reasons.
Early
in the discovery process, the Court entered a Stipulated
Protective Order. (Doc. 100.) The Stipulated Protective Order
defined the term “confidential information” to
include “confidential financial, personal, or
commercial information.” Id. at 2. The
Stipulated Protective Order noted that before any
confidential material could be filed with the Court,
“the party seeking to file such material must seek
permission of the Court to file the material under seal in
accordance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 5.6.
Nothing in this order shall be construed as automatically
permitting a party to file under seal. The party seeking
leave of Court shall show “compelling reasons”
(where the motion is more than tangentially related to the
merits of the case) or “good cause” for filing
under seal.” Id. at 5. The Stipulated
Protective Order also noted “The Court may modify the
terms and conditions of this Order for good cause, or in the
interest of justice, or on its own order at any time in these
proceedings.” Id. at 10 (emphasis added).
Twice
before, the parties have filed materials with this Court and
later moved to seal them. Defendants moved to seal a
declaration in support of their Motion for Sanctions. (Doc.
175.) Plaintiff moved to seal a declaration in support of his
Cross-Motion for Sanctions and Response to Defendants'
Motion for Sanctions. (Doc. 183). The Court granted those
motions and sealed Documents 174 and 179. (Docs. 185, 194.)
In the
Ninth Circuit, there is a “strong presumption in favor
of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.
2003). This presumption is rebutted if a discovery document
subject to a protective order is attached to a nondispositive
motion. Id. But if a motion is “‘more
than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action,
'” the party seeking to seal the records must
provide a compelling reason to do so. Unknown Parties v.
Johnson, No. CV-15-00250-TUC-DCB, 2016 WL 8199309, at *3
(D. Ariz. June 27, 2016) (quoting Center for Auto Safety
v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir.
2016)). To meet the compelling reasons standard, the party
seeking to seal the records “must ‘articulate
compelling reasons supported by specific factual
findings.'” Id. (quoting Kamakana v.
City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th
Cir. 2006).
Here,
Plaintiff seeks to seal a dispositive motion, as well as the
statement of facts supporting the motion and several
exhibits, and must therefore provide a compelling reason for
his request. Plaintiff has not done so. Plaintiff explains
only that the exhibits “were marked
‘confidential' by Defendant Progressive.”
(Doc. 214 at 2.) A blanket protective order, which is
obtained “without making a particularized showing of
good cause with respect to any individual document, ”
does not entitle a party “to hold these records under
seal forever.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1138.
Exhibit “I” contains excerpts from the deposition
of Keith Benefiel, Jr. (Doc. 211-10.) The Court does not find
a compelling reason to seal this document. Exhibit
“F” contains nine tax identification numbers.
(Doc. 211-1 at 21-24.) These numbers must be redacted
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(a). The Court
will grant Plaintiff's motion to seal the unredacted
Exhibit “F” filed at Document 211-7. Plaintiff
must redact those numbers, and no other information, and file
a public version of the exhibit. Neither Plaintiff's
Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Use of Third-Party VPN
Contracts by Progressive nor Plaintiff's Statement of
Facts in Support of His Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Use
of Third-Party VPN Contracts By Progressive reference the tax
identification numbers, and accordingly the Court does not
find a compelling reason to seal either document, or any of
the other documents attached to the statement of facts.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Seal (Doc. 214)
is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. The motion is GRANTED as to
Exhibit “F” (Doc. 211-7). The Clerk of Court
shall seal Document 211-7. The motion is
DENIED as to Documents 210, 211,
211-1-211-6, and 211-8-211-11.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED Plaintiff shall file a redacted
copy of Exhibit “F” to Plaintiffs Statement of
Facts in Support of His Motion for Summary Judgment Re: Use
of Third-Party VPN Contracts By Progressive no later than
October 7, 2019.
IT
IS FURTHER ORDERED this Order ...