Cadles of West Virginia, LLC v. Alvarez

Opinion

CADLES OF WEST VIRGINIA, LLC, Case No.: 20-CV-2534 TWR (WVG)

Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL MARIO ALVAREZ, et al., IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR Defendants. PREJUDGEMENT WRIT OF ATTACHMENT

(ECF No. 85) Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Cadles of West Virginia, LLC’s Motion to File Certain Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 85, “Mot.”) in support of its Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment (ECF No. 86). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion. “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking / / / to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to seal a judicial record depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). Where the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the stringent “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. Where the underlying motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the less exacting “good cause” standard applies. Id. The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. Plaintiff seeks leave to file the following exhibits under seal in support of its Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment: (1) Portions of Beth Chrisman’s Expert Report (pages 42–1314) (ECF Nos. 87-1–87-7); (2) Loan Application for Laguna Beach Property in the Name of Mario Alvarez (pages 1632–1638) (ECF No. 87-8); and (3) Loan Application for Kailua Kona Property in the Name of Mario Alvarez (pages 1639–1644) (ECF No. 87-9). (See ECF No. 86 at 2–3.)1 Because a prejudgment writ of attachment requires a court to determine “the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based,” see Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 484.090(2), any sealed documents supporting such a motion are necessarily more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, see Cummings v. Worktap, Inc., No. 17-CV-06246-SBA (SK), 2018 WL 3067782, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2018). Accordingly, the higher “compelling reasons” standard applies. / / / 1 Plaintiff refers to these documents as Exhibits 3, 17, and 18, respectively. (See Mot. at 1–2; see also ECF No, 86 at 22–24.) Yet, when submitting its Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment, Plaintiff failed to file slip sheets indicating that pages 42 through 1314 of Exhibit 3 and Exhibits 17 and 18 in their entirety would be lodged under seal. (See generally ECF Nos. 86-1–86-18.) The Court cautions Plaintiff that, going forward, publicly filed exhibits should account for all pages that constitute the record, including “Examples [of compelling reasons] include when a court record might be used to ‘gratify private spite or promote public scandal,’ to circulate ‘libelous’ statements, or ‘as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598–99). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). In this District, certain information traditionally kept secret—such as social security numbers, birth dates, and financial account numbers—must be filed under seal or partially redacted from public filings. See Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, § 1.h (Jan. 30, 2023), available at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/cmecf/Electronic% 20Case%20Filing%20Procedures%20Manual.pdf; In re Adopting a Policy on Privacy and Public Access to Electronic Case Files, General Order No. 514-E (S.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2020), available at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/rules/General%20Order% 20514-E%20Adopting%20a%20Policy%20on%20Privacy%20and%20Public%20Access %20to%20Electronic%20Case%20Files.pdf.. Here, Plaintiff has redacted such information not only from all public filings, (see generally ECF Nos. 86-1–86-18), but also from the exhibits lodged under seal, (see generally ECF No. 87-1–87-9). Thus, Plaintiff has identified no sensitive information remaining in the lodged documents that provides a compelling reason to file them under seal. Rather, Plaintiff’s only justification for filing these documents under seal is the Protective Order, (see Mot. at 4), which requires any party seeking to file material designated as “confidential” to first “seek permission of the Court to file the material under seal.” (See ECF No. 46 ¶ 11.) Here, the exhibits Plaintiff seeks to file under seal were designated as confidential under the Protective Order. (See Mot. at 3–4.) Yet, “[t]he existence of a stipulated protected order is not enough, standing alone, to justify sealing under the [more permissive] ‘good cause’ standard.” Signal Hill Serv., Inc. v. Macquarie Bank Ltd., No. CV1101539MMMJEMX, 2013 WL 12244287, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2013) (citing Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992); In re Ferrero Litig., No. 11-CV-205 H(CAB), 2011 WL 3360443, *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2011)). Plaintiffhas therefore failed to identify any “compelling reasons” to file the lodged documents under seal. For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE □□□□□□□□□□ Motion (ECF No. 85). Either Party MAY FILE a renewed motion to file under seal any documents for which “compelling reasons” exist within fourteen (14) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. Should neither Party elect to file a renewed motion, Plaintiff SHALL PUBLICLY FILE ECF No. 87 within twenty-one (21) days of the electronic docketing of this Order. Dated: February 27, 2023 —_—— od (2 ® □□□ Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge