Opinion
Case No. 2:12-cv-01567-JAD-NJK
10-29-2014
ROBERT E. WERBICKY, et al., Plaintiff, v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER (Docket Nos. 57, 71)
Pending before the Court is an order to show cause related to the improper filing of Docket No. 57. See Docket No. 71. In particular, the Court required the parties to explain why Docket No. 57 should not be filed publicly. See Docket No. 71 at 2. Plaintiffs filed a response indicating that they filed Docket No. 57 under seal as a means to comply with the stipulated protective order because Exhibits 5 and 6 were designated by Defendant as confidential. See Docket No. 75 at 2. Plaintiffs take no position on whether any documents are actually confidential. See id. In response, the Court ordered Defendant to "file a notice stating explicitly what portions of Docket No. 57 and any exhibits in support of that brief warrant secrecy." Docket No. 82 at 2. Defendant has now filed a notice indicating that the only portion of that filing that warrants secrecy is Exhibit 6, and that the remainder may be filed publicly. See Docket No. 91 at 1.
To seal a document filed in relation to a dispositive motion, the movant must provide "compelling reasons" to warrant secrecy. See, e.g., Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Exhibit 6 consists of Green Tree's servicing agreement with RBS Citizens, N.A. See Docket No. 80 at 1-2. Defendant argues that the Servicing Agreement constitutes a trade secret, that Defendant maintains the confidentiality of its terms, and that revelation of the Servicing Agreement would result in Defendant being competitively disadvantaged. See Docket No. 80 at 6-8. Defendant also argues that the exhibit cannot be easily redacted while leaving other meaningful information available to the public. See id. at 9.
The Court agrees that compelling reasons exist to allow Exhibit 6 to be filed under seal. As acknowledged by the parties, compelling reasons do not exist to seal any other aspect of Docket No. 57. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiffs to refile, no later than November 6, 2014, Docket No. 57 and all exhibits attached thereto on the public docket, except that Exhibit 6 should be filed under seal.
To be clear, Exhibit 6 must be filed under seal, and Plaintiffs shall not submit a copy of Exhibit 6 to chambers for in camera review.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 29, 2014
/s/_________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge