Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 18, 2021
• Docket: 5:18-cv-05623
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 RONALD CHINITZ, Case No. 18-cv-05623-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 9 v. PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 10 INTERO REAL ESTATE SERVICES,

11 Defendant.

12 13 Before the Court is Defendant Intero Real Estate Services’s motion to file part of Exhibit B 14 to the Supplemental Declaration of Craig L. Davis under seal. See Mot., ECF 166. Because Intero 15 has not complied with this District’s local rules regarding sealing motions, this motion is DENIED 16 WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 17 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 18 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and County of 19 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 20 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978)). Consequently, filings that are “more than tangentially related to the 21 merits of a case” may be sealed only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for sealing. Ctr. for 22 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101-02 (9th Cir. 2016). Filings that are only 23 tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a lesser showing of “good cause.” Id. at 24 1097. Sealing motions filed in this district also must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of 25 sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Under Civil 26 Local Rule 79-5(d), the submitting party must attach a “proposed order that is narrowly tailored to 27 seal only the sealable material” which “lists in table format each document or portion thereof that 1 a declaration establishing that the identified material is “sealable.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1){A). 2 || “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents 3 as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” Id. 4 Intero’s proposed reason for sealing portions of Exhibit B is “Non-party LexisNexis 5 marked the exhibit ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this case.” Mot. 6 3. Under this District’s local rules, this is not sufficient justification. This motion is DENIED 7 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Any re-filed motion must conform to both the local rules and this 8 Court’s Standing Orders regarding sealing motions. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 || Dated: March 18, 2021 kom Lh ham tn) a (12 BETH LABSON FREEMAN 13 United States District Judge

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28