Brophy v. Adkins

D. Montana

Brophy v. Adkins

District Court, D. Montana·Decided May 25, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-00116·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

RORY V. HOTOMANIE, CV 20-117-BLG-SPW-TJC (Member Case) Plaintiff, Consolidated with vs. CV-20-116-BLG-SPW-TJC (Lead Case) ARCHIE ADKINS, MS DIRECTIONAL, LLC., and DOES I-V, ORDER Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Rory V. Hotomanie’s Motion to File Document Under Seal. (Doc. 33.) The starting point for motions to seal in the Ninth Circuit is a “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.2003)). “A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135); Ruffner v. Ken Blanchard Companies, Inc., 2017 WL 11423946, at *1 (D. Mont. Nov. 16, 2017). This standard requires the party to “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings, such that they outweigh the general history of access and the public policy favoring disclosure.” /d. Local Rules 1.3 and 5.2 embody the Ninth Circuit’s compelling reasons standard. Here, the motion fails to comply with L.R. 5.2(d)’s provisions. Plaintiff does not explain why inclusion in the public record is not appropriate and gives no

reason for sealing the four lodged documents other than to state they are “confidential and [are] subject to a joint stipulated confidentiality agreement between the parties.” (Doc. 33 at 2.) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 33) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile the motion in compliance with L.R. 5.2(d) by explaining why including the document in the public record is not appropriate, and either (1) state why it is not feasible to file a redacted version of the document in the public record, or (2) be accompanied by a redacted version of the document filed in the public record. IT IS ORDERED. DATED this 25th day of May, 2021.

TIMOTHYLCAVAN United States Magistrate Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION

RORY V. HOTOMANIE, CV 20-117-BLG-SPW-TJC (Member Case) Plaintiff, Consolidated with vs. CV-20-116-BLG-SPW-TJC (Lead Case) ARCHIE ADKINS, MS DIRECTIONAL, LLC., and DOES I-V, ORDER Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff Rory V. Hotomanie’s Motion to File Document Under Seal. (Doc. 33.) The starting point for motions to seal in the Ninth Circuit is a “strong presumption in favor of access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.2003)). “A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135); Ruffner v. Ken Blanchard Companies, Inc., 2017 WL 11423946, at *1 (D. Mont. Nov. 16, 2017). This standard requires the party to “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings, such that they outweigh the general history of access and the public policy favoring disclosure.” /d. Local Rules 1.3 and 5.2 embody the Ninth Circuit’s compelling reasons standard. Here, the motion fails to comply with L.R. 5.2(d)’s provisions. Plaintiff does not explain why inclusion in the public record is not appropriate and gives no

reason for sealing the four lodged documents other than to state they are “confidential and [are] subject to a joint stipulated confidentiality agreement between the parties.” (Doc. 33 at 2.) Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion (Doc. 33) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may refile the motion in compliance with L.R. 5.2(d) by explaining why including the document in the public record is not appropriate, and either (1) state why it is not feasible to file a redacted version of the document in the public record, or (2) be accompanied by a redacted version of the document filed in the public record. IT IS ORDERED. DATED this 25th day of May, 2021.

TIMOTHYLCAVAN United States Magistrate Judge

Brophy v. Adkins, (D. Mont. 2021).

Pincite

Brophy v. Adkins (Brophy v. Adkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Debbie Foltz, Consumer Action United Policyholders Texas Watch, Intervenors, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, and Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and California Institute of Medical Research & Technology, Inc., a Foreign Corporation Dba Comprehensive Medical Review Ralph Householder Steven Becker v. April Jean Ho Jim Mathis, Plaintiffs-Intervenors. Debbie Foltz, April J. Ho Jim Mathis Tierney Adamson Kevin Snead Daniel P. Johnson, Intervenors, and Consumer Action United Policy-Holders Texas Watch, Intervenors-Appellants v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, and Steven Becker

331 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Opinion

Related