Copenhaver v. Cavagna North America, Inc.

D. Montana

Copenhaver v. Cavagna North America, Inc.

DecidedFebruary 16, 2021

Docket1:19-cv-00071

StatusUnknown

This text of Copenhaver v. Cavagna North America, Inc. (Copenhaver v. Cavagna North America, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Montana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Copenhaver v. Cavagna North America, Inc., (D. Mont. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BILLINGS DIVISION TODD COPENHAVER and AMBER CV 19-71-BLG-SPW-TJC COPENHAVER, Plaintiffs, ORDER

vs. CAVAGNA GROUP S.p.A OMECA DIVISION, AMERIGAS PROPANE, L.P., ALBERTSONS, LLC., and DOES 1-10, Defendants. Before the Court are Plaintiffs Todd and Amber Copenhaver and Defendant Cavagna Group S.p.A. Omeca Division’s respective Motions to File Documents

Under Seal. (Docs. 130, 145, 187.) 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 motions fail to comply with L.R. 5.2(d)’s provisions. In Plaintiffs’ first motion to seal (Doc. 130), no reason is given for sealing the five requested documents other than to state they “fall within existing protective stipulations.” In their second motion (Doc. 145), Plaintiffs cite to L.R. 5.2 but provide no reason why inclusion in the public record is not appropriate. Defendant’s motion (Doc. 187) fails for the same reason. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions (Docs. 130, 145, 187) are DENIED without prejudice. The parties may refile their motions 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 16th day of February, 2021. \ M0 fe TIMOTHY 4. CAVAN 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 TODD COPENHAVER and AMBER CV 19-71-BLG-SPW-TJC COPENHAVER, Plaintiffs, ORDER

vs. CAVAGNA GROUP S.p.A OMECA DIVISION, AMERIGAS PROPANE, L.P., ALBERTSONS, LLC., and DOES 1-10, Defendants. Before the Court are Plaintiffs Todd and Amber Copenhaver and Defendant Cavagna Group S.p.A. Omeca Division’s respective Motions to File Documents

Under Seal. (Docs. 130, 145, 187.) 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 motions fail to comply with L.R. 5.2(d)’s provisions. In Plaintiffs’ first motion to seal (Doc. 130), no reason is given for sealing the five requested documents other than to state they “fall within existing protective stipulations.” In their second motion (Doc. 145), Plaintiffs cite to L.R. 5.2 but provide no reason why inclusion in the public record is not appropriate. Defendant’s motion (Doc. 187) fails for the same reason. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motions (Docs. 130, 145, 187) are DENIED without prejudice. The parties may refile their motions 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 16th day of February, 2021. \ M0 fe TIMOTHY 4. CAVAN United States Magistrate Judge

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Copenhaver v. Cavagna North America, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/copenhaver-v-cavagna-north-america-inc-mtd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack