Andrew D. Zaron v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 Jasso, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00858-CDS-BNW

5 Plaintiffs, ORDER 6 v.

7 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to seal, ECF No. 221, and Defendants’ motion to 11 seal, ECF No. 226. Neither motion is opposed, and Defendants submitted a response as additional 12 support for Plaintiffs’ motion. 13 I. Legal Standard 14 Generally, the public has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. Kamakana v. City & 15 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Such records are presumptively publicly 16 accessible. Id. Consequently, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 17 overcoming this strong presumption. Id. In the case of dispositive motions, the party seeking to 18 seal the record must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 19 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the 20 public interest in understanding the judicial process. Id. at 1178-79 (alteration and internal 21 quotation marks and citations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has further held that the full 22 presumption of public access applies to technically non-dispositive motions and attached 23 documents as well, as long as the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the 24 case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 25 Given the “weaker public interest in nondispositive materials,” the Court applies the good 26 cause standard in evaluating whether to seal documents attached to a non-dispositive motion that 27 are not more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 1 motions ‘are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action,’ and, 2 as a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does ‘not apply with equal 3 force’ to non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 4 1179). 5 II. ECF No. 221: Exhibits 3-7 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply (ECF No. 222) Will Remain Sealed and the Proposed Reply at ECF 222-1 Will Remain 6 Redacted, as Plaintiffs Have Met the Compelling Reasons Standard 7 On January 31, 2022, this Court issued a report and recommendation denying Plaintiffs’ 8 Motion to Amend. ECF No. 199 at p. 7. Plaintiffs objected (ECF No. 207) and are currently 9 seeking to file a reply in support of those objections (Motion for Leave to Reply at ECF No. 10 222).1 Plaintiffs’ motion at ECF No. 221 seeks to seal Exhibits 3-7 attached to their Motion for 11 Leave to File a Reply at ECF No. 222. It also seeks to redact the substantive discussion of those 12 exhibits contained in the proposed reply at ECF No. 222-1. 13 The proposed reply is related to a dispositive motion, as the report and recommendation 14 denies Plaintiffs’ request to add a claim against Defendants (ECF No. 199 at p. 7).2 Plaintiffs seek 15 to seal these documents because they contain “excerpts of policies and documents that have been 16 designated ‘Highly Confidential’ by Wells Fargo, and the Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order.” 17 ECF No. 221 at 2. Plaintiffs contend that the protective order requires such documents (and any 18 discussion of those documents) to be filed under seal. Id. Even though these documents may be 19 subject to a protective order, Ninth Circuit law still requires this Court to apply the compelling 20 reason standard. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (finding that 21 documents subject to a protective order are filed under seal as attachments to dispositive motions 22 are still subject to the ‘compelling reasons’ standard). 23 24 25 1 The proposed Reply is currently redacted at ECF No. 222-1. The sealed and unredacted version of the proposed 26 reply is at ECF No. 223-1.

27 2 While the Court applies the “compelling reasons” standard for Plaintiffs’ motion, the motion still passes the “good cause” standard proposed by Plaintiffs because “good cause” is a lower standard than the one the Court applies. The 1 The Court reviewed the documents at issue in Exhibits 3-7 and finds that compelling 2 reasons exist to seal them. The documents contain sensitive information – and discussions about 3 that sensitive information – regarding Wells Fargo’s business practices and procedures that could 4 be used for an improper purpose if allowed into the public record. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 5 1179. 6 The Court also reviewed the unredacted portions of the proposed reply (at ECF No. 223-1) 7 and finds that compelling reasons exist for redaction. These portions contain sensitive business 8 information that could be used for an improper purpose if allowed to be in the public record. See 9 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 10 Accordingly, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion to seal Exhibits 3-7 to ECF No. 222 and 11 their request to maintain ECF No. 222-1 in a redacted format. 12 III. ECF No. 226: Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply will Remain Redacted, and the Exhibit Attached to that Motion will 13 Remain Sealed, as Plaintiffs Have Met the Compelling Reasons Standard 14 Defendants seek to redact portions of their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to 15 File a Reply at ECF No. 228 and to maintain the exhibit attached to the opposition under seal.3 16 Defendants’ opposition relates to whether Plaintiffs should be allowed to file a reply in support of 17 their objections to a report and recommendation. Thus, it does not relate to a dispositive matter 18 nor is it more than tangentially related to the merits of the case. Defendants seek to seal these 19 documents because the material is “derived from or relates to Wells Fargo’s internal, non-public 20 investigative processes and procedures.” ECF No. 226 at 6. 21 The Court reviewed the unredacted portions of the opposition at issue (ECF No. 227) as 22 well as the exhibit and finds that good cause exists to redact and seal this information. The 23 information in question contains sensitive business information that could be used for an 24 improper purpose if allowed to be in the public record. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 25 Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ motion. 26

27 2 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion at ECF No. 221 and Defendants’ 3 || motion at ECF No. 226 are GRANTED. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibits 3-7 to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave (ECF No. 5 |} 222) shall remain under seal, and any discussions of those exhibits in the motion will remain 6 || redacted. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Exhibit 1 to Defendants’ Opposition (ECF No. 227) shall 8 || remain sealed. 9 10 DATED: July 8, 2022 LD? Z g~ Las Are □□□ BRENDA WEKSLER 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28