United States District Court, D. Arizona
ORDER
DOMINIC W. LANZA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending
before the Court is the Republic of Kazakhstan's Renewed
Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal (Doc. 8) and
supporting memorandum (Doc. 10). For the reasons stated
below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
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).
The
Republic of Kazakhstan initiated this case by filing an
application under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 for a subpoena to
compel an Arizona resident to testify in, and produce certain
evidence concerning, a pending international investor-state
arbitration. (Doc. 1.) That application was heavily redacted.
(Id.) An unredacted application and accompanying
exhibits were lodged. (Doc. 3.)
The
Court denied the Republic of Kazakhstan's first motion to
seal (Doc. 4), noting that the short motion did not attempt
to “articulate compelling reasons supported by
specific factual findings that outweigh the general
history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure
. . . .” (Doc. 5 at 2; see also LRCiv 5.6(b)
(“Any motion or stipulation to file a document under
seal must set forth a clear statement of the facts and legal
authority justifying the filing of the document under seal .
. . .”).)
On
October 22, 2019, the Republic of Kazakhstan filed a redacted
amended application. (Doc. 7.)[1] In support of the redacted
amended application, the Republic of Kazakhstan also filed
several exhibits, some of which contain
redactions[2] and some of which don't.[3] An unredacted
amended application was lodged (Doc. 9-1), and unredacted
versions of the redacted exhibits were likewise
lodged.[4] The Republic of Kazakhstan also filed a
second motion to seal (Doc. 8), and this time the motion is
supported by a memorandum of law articulating the reasons
that justify sealing. (Doc. 10.)
The
Court has carefully reviewed the redactions in the amended
application (Doc. 7) and has determined that the information
redacted from this document meets the Kamakana
standard-the Republic of Kazakhstan's interest in
maintaining confidentiality outweighs the public policy
favoring disclosure, especially considering that the
redaction of the particular information at issue here will
not interfere with the public's ability to evaluate and
understand these proceedings. The Court will therefore allow
the unredacted amended application (Doc. 9-1) to be filed
under seal.
As for
the exhibits to the amended application, the Court concludes
that the redactions appearing in Doc. 7-1 (memorandum of law
in support of the application), Doc. 7-5 (arbitration
request), Doc. 7-6 (arbitration brief on jurisdiction), and
Doc. 7-7 (arbitration request for production of documents)
meet the Kamakana standard for the same reasons.
Thus, the Court will allow the unredacted versions of these
documents-Doc. 9-2 (memorandum of law in support of the
application), Doc. 9-3 (arbitration request), Doc. 9-4
(arbitration brief on jurisdiction), and Doc. 9-5
(arbitration request for production of documents)-to be filed
under seal.
In
contrast, the redactions appearing in Doc. 7-7 (arbitration
request for production of documents) do not meet the
Kamakana standard. The Court is not convinced that
the information subject to the redaction request is sensitive
or that its disclosure would result in any harm. Accordingly,
the Court will not agree to seal the unredacted version of
this document (Doc. 9-6).
The
Republic of Kazakhstan also lodged one additional document as
part of its sealing request. This document, which appears at
Doc. 9, appears to be identical to the memorandum that was
publicly filed at Doc. 10 (which doesn't contain any
redactions). The Republic of Kazakhstan has therefore failed
to establish, under Kamakana, why this particular
document needs to be filed under seal.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Republic of
Kazakhstan's Renewed Motion for Leave to File Documents
Under Seal (Doc. 8) is granted in part and denied in
part. The Clerk of Court shall filed under seal the
unredacted application (Doc. 9-1) and the exhibits at Doc.
9-2, 9-3, 9-4, and 9-5. In contrast, the documents lodged at
Doc. 9 and 9-6 will not be filed.
---------
Notes:
[1] The amended application supersedes the
original application that was filed at Doc. 1. Ferdik v.
Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992); Hal
Roach Studios v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., ...