Opinion
Case No.: 3:11-cv-348-RCJ-RAM
11-14-2012
ANDREW L. JORDAN, Plaintiffs, v. PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE, INC., FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP; CHARLOTTE OLMOS; and DOES 1-25 CORPORATIONS; DOES and ROES 1-25 Individuals, Partnerships, or anyone claiming any interest to the property described in the action, Defendants.
JACOB D. BUNDICK., ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 9772 NATALIE L. WINSLOW, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12125 AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP Attorneys for Defendants ReconTrust Company, N.A., and Bank of America, N.A., successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
JACOB D. BUNDICK., ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 9772
NATALIE L. WINSLOW, ESQ.
Nevada Bar No. 12125
AKERMAN SENTERFITT LLP
Attorneys for Defendants ReconTrust
Company, N.A., and Bank of America, N.A.,
successor by merger to BAC Home Loans
Servicing, LP
ORDER
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE UNDER
SEAL
Defendants ReconTrust Company, N.A. (ReconTrust), and Bank of America, N.A. (BANA), successor by merger to BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (BAC) move for leave to file under seal pursuant to Local Rule 10-5(b) an internal proprietary document which they intend to produce as evidence in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I
INTRODUCTION
This Court previously denied defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment [Dkt. 58], finding that defendants had not provided sufficient evidence that First American Title Insurance Company (First American Title), the entity that executed the Notice of Default as agent for ReconTrust, had authority to execute the Notice of Default. [Id.]Defendants have in their possession the evidence requested by the Court. There is a reasonable basis for departing from the general policy of a public filing, and good cause exists to grant this Motion to File Under Seal, because the subject evidence, a Statement of Work (SOW), is proprietary to BANA and evidences a confidential delineation of services provided by First American Title to BANA.
II
LEGAL ARGUMENT
Local Rule 10-5(b) provides, in pertinent part, that "papers filed with the Court under seal shall be accompanied by a motion for leave to file those documents under seal, and shall be filed in accordance with the Court's electronic filing procedures." The Ninth Circuit has determined that, in the event a party requests to file documents under seal, the Court should balance the compelling reasons for sealing the subject documents with the public interest favoring disclosure. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). "In general, 'compelling reasons' sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such 'court files might have 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 v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1306 (1978)). Moreover, the public interest in full disclosure of documents is limited to ensuring the "public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events." Id. (quoting Valley Broadcasting Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 798 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir. 1986)).
Here, there are compelling reasons to seal the SOW because the document contains confidential terms entered into by BANA and First American Title. Specifically, the SOW is an agreement between two commercial entities that represents BANA's business model for the nonjudicial foreclosure of real properties in Nevada. These business methods contain detailed provisions related to the proprietary nature of information and documents furnished for the purpose of performing under the agreement. The SOW contains a list of services provided by First American Title to BANA; specific instructions regarding invoicing; a service fees schedule; and performance methods. The general public interest is not served in any way by the disclosure of said proprietary information because it does not promote the public's understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events. See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Therefore the sensitive nature of the SOW outweighs the public's interest in disclosure.
Accordingly, there are compelling reasons to justify defendants' request to file the SOW, which contains competitively sensitive information, under seal.
III
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, defendants request this Court allow them to file the SOW. as an exhibit to their Motion for Summary Judgment under seal.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED dated this 14th day of November, 2012. ____________
ROBERT CANNES
Chief Judge