Brinker v. Axos Bank

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JENNIFER BREAR BRINKER, Case No. 22-cv-0386-MMA (DDL)

11 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 12 v. MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 13 AXOS BANK, et al., [Doc. Nos. 240, 243, 245] 14 Defendants.

15 16 17 AXOS BANK, et al., Counter-Claimants, 18 v. 19 20 JENNIFER BREAR BRINKER,

21 Counter-Defendant. 22 23 24 On April 21, 2025, Defendant/Cross Claimant Axos Bank (“Defendant”) filed a 25 motion to file documents under seal in support of Plaintiff/Cross Defendant Jennifer 26 Brear Brinker’s (“Plaintiff”) opposition to Defendant’s summary judgment motion. Doc. 27 No. 240. On April 24, 2025, Defendant filed two additional motions to seal documents in 28 support of: (1) Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, Motion to Exclude Andrew 1 Micheletti, and Motion for Sanctions, Doc. No. 243; and (2) Defendant’s opposition to 2 Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 245. 3 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public 4 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & 5 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 6 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). This is “because court records often 7 provide important, sometimes the only, bases or explanations for a court’s decision.” 8 Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014) (quotation marks omitted). 9 Accordingly, when considering a request to seal, “a strong presumption in favor of 10 access” is generally a court’s “starting point.” United States v. Bus. of Custer Battlefield 11 Museum & Store, 658 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 12 1178). For filings more than tangentially related to the case’s merits, including motions 13 to dismiss, that presumption can be overcome only by a showing of a “compelling 14 reason,” that “outweigh[s] the general history of access and the public policies favoring 15 disclosure.” Id. at 1194–95; Settrini v. City of San Diego, No. 320CV02273RBMBGS, 16 2022 WL 6785755 *1 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022). “Courts have held that ‘confidential 17 business information’ in the form of ‘license agreements, financial terms, details of 18 confidential licensing negotiations, and business strategies’ also satisfies the compelling 19 reasons standard.” Nia v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 21-CV-1799-BAS-BGS, 2024 WL 20 171659 *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024). 21 Having reviewed Defendant’s motions and respective documents, the Court finds 22 that Defendant has shown compelling reasons to file these documents under seal. For 23 instance, the Court finds that Defendant has shown compelling reasons to seal the 24 documents that contain non-public supervisory information from its primary regulator, 25 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), as they contain confidential and 26 privileged non-public supervisory information from the OCC, and unauthorized 27 disclosure would violate federal regulations. See Erhart v. BofI Fed. Bank, No. 15-CV- 28 02287-BAS-NLS, 2019 WL 4534701, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2019) (“In light of the 1 foregoing, the Court finds it appropriate to seal information subject to the bank 2 examination privilege; namely, the OCC’s examination requests to BofI and the Bank’s 3 responses to these requests. The Court also finds it appropriate to seal briefing, deposition 4 testimony, and other information that reveals the content of the OCC’s requests and the 5 Bank's responses.”); In re SunTrust Banks, Inc. ERISA Litig., No. 1:08-CV-3384-RWS, 6 2017 WL 11634376, at *1 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 4, 2017) (“Unauthorized disclosure of 7 confidential supervisory information can lead to civil and criminal penalties.”) (citing 12 8 C.F.R. §§ 4.36, 4.37). 9 Additionally, Defendant has shown compelling reasons for sealing the exhibits that 10 contain sensitive and confidential business information. See Lovejoy v. Transdev Servs., 11 Inc., No. 23-CV-00380-AJB-MMP, 2024 WL 4941022, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2024) 12 (“Compelling reasons also may exist if sealing is required to prevent documents from 13 being used ‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive 14 standing.”); Nia v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 21-CV-1799-BAS-BGS, 2024 WL 171659, at 15 *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2024) (“Courts have held that ‘confidential business information’ 16 in the form of ‘license agreements, financial terms, details of confidential licensing 17 negotiations, and business strategies” also satisfies the compelling reasons standard.’”) 18 Furthermore, the Court finds that information like salary information can be a 19 compelling reason to be seal. Lovejoy, 2024 WL 4941022, at *2 (“The Court agrees with 20 Plaintiff that there are compelling reasons to seal some of the information on Plaintiff’s 21 wage statement, specifically Plaintiff’s salary information.”). 22 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motions to file under seal 23 documents submitted in support of Plaintiff’s motions and opposition. Doc. Nos. 240, 24 243. Namely, the Court GRANTS leave to file the following UNDER SEAL: 25 • Exhibits 12, 13, 25 of Robert King’s Declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion 26 for Summary Judgment; 27 • Exhibits 7 and 17 of Plaintiff’s Declaration in support of her Motion for 28 Summary Judgment; 1 e Exhibit 1 of the Robert King’s Declaration in support of Plaintiff's Motion to 2 Exclude Andrew Micheletti; 3 e Exhibits 8 and 9 of the Robert King’s Declaration in support of Plaintiff's Motion 4 for Sanctions; 5 e Exhibits 2, 16, 24, 41, 42, 51, 53 and 65 of the Robert King Declaration in 6 support of Plaintiff's opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment; 7 e Unredacted version of Plaintiff's most recent opposition to Defendant’s summary 8 judgment motion; 9 e Plaintiff's Additional Material Facts in Support of Opposition Nos. 4, 21, 93, 99 10 and 105; and e Exhibit 6 of Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice and accompanying Exhibit A. 12 13 The Court DIRECTS Plaintiff to relodge complete and unredacted versions of the 14 |/identified materials above within five (5) business days of the date of this Order and 15 || DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to then file the lodged documents UNDER SEAL. 16 Further, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to seal documents in support of 17 opposition to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Doc. No. 245, and DIRECTS 18 Clerk of Court to file Doc. No. 246-2 UNDER SEAL. 19 Pursuant to Doc. No. 238 at 10, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to also file 20 || the lodged documents in Doc. No. 247 UNDER SEAL. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: April 30, 2025 23 “ Mikel Ua Clihls MA LL 24 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28