Opinion
CIV. NO. 2:14-02309 WBS AC
08-16-2016
RANDY BLANKENCHIP and SUSAN BLANKENCHIP, Plaintiffs, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.; CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE, LLC; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER RE: REQUEST TO SEAL
Plaintiffs Randy and Susan Blankenchip initiated this suit against defendants CitiMortgage, Inc. ("Citi") and Cal-Western Reconveyance, LLC alleging defendants breached a loan modification agreement and wrongfully foreclosed on their home. Presently before the court is plaintiffs' and Citi's stipulated request to seal a number of documents in connection with Citi's motion for summary judgment. (Req. to Seal (Docket No. 76).) The documents include the declarations of Robert R. Yap, Jeanine Cohoon, Henry J. Hymanson, and the respective exhibits, (Docket Nos. 72-2, 72-3, 72-4, 72-5, 72-6, and 74-3), and the deposition transcripts lodged with the court of Matthew Sinner, Jeanne Pezold, Jeanine Cohoon. (Id. at 2.)
A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party must "articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process." Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted). In ruling on a request to seal, the court must balance the competing interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records secret. Id. at 1179.
The parties contend the documents should be sealed because "they partially contain information and material subject to" the parties' stipulated protective order signed by Magistrate Judge Claire. (Req. to Seal at 1-2.) The parties provide no other justification for sealing what amounts to nearly all of the declarations and exhibits relevant to Citi's motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs' opposition. This court has previously pointed out that a confidentiality agreement between the parties does not per se constitute a compelling reason to seal documents that outweighs the interests of public disclosure and access. See Oct. 8, 2014 Order at 2, Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging Distrib., Civ. No. 2:13-1754; Sept. 3, 2015 Order at 3, Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, Civ. No. 1:14-00953; Sept. 18, 2015 Order at 2, Rosales v. City of Chico, Civ. No. 2:14-02152. The fact that the assigned magistrate judge signed the stipulated protective order does not change this principle.
The parties have therefore failed to provide a compelling reason to seal the summary judgment documents. Given the important public policies favoring disclosure to the public and the media, the request will accordingly be denied. The denial will be without prejudice to the parties refiling a more tailored request to seal specific portions of the material or to redact certain lines.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties' request to seal (Docket No. 76) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice. Dated: August 16, 2016
/s/ _________
WILLIAM B. SHUBB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE