Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cv-00444-GMN-GWF
07-10-2013
GRANT CLEVERLEY, in his individual capacity and on behalf of nominal plaintiff ALLSITE STRUCTURE RENTALS, LLC, also a defendant herein, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES BALLANTYNE, an individual; ALLSITE STRUCTURE RENTALS, LLC, Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Cleverley's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Seal Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (#117), filed on July 2, 2013.
The Supreme Court has recognized a "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978). A narrow range of documents is not subject to the right of public access because the records have "traditionally been kept secret for important policy reasons." Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989). Unless a particular court record is one "traditionally kept secret," a "strong presumption in favor of access" is the starting point. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). The moving party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that "outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure." Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted).
Although a "good cause" standard applies to motions to seal documents attached to non-dispositive motions, see id. at 1179-80, the "compelling reasons" standard applies to motions to seal all or part of a complaint. See, e.g., In re NVIDIA Corp. Derivative Litigation, 2008 WL 1859067, *4 (N.D. Calif., April 23 2008). Compelling reasons sufficient to justify sealing court records exist "when such court files might [...] become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets." Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiff represents that portions of his Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (#116) and his proposed Second Amended Complaint (#116, Exh. 2) refer to not-yet-filed exhibits that contain information subject to the Protective Order (#34) in this case. Due to these representations, the Court finds Plaintiff establishes compelling reasons to seal those portions of the Motion (#116) and proposed Second Amended Complaint (#116, Exh. 2) that contain information subject to the Protective Order. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Seal Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (#117) is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
(1) Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (#116) and its exhibits shall remain under seal;
(2) Plaintiff shall re-file an unsealed copy of the Motion (#116) and its exhibits with the information subject to the Protective Order (#34) redacted.
______________
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
United States Magistrate Judge