eCardless Bancorp, Ltd. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 6 7 ECARDLESS BANCORP, LTD., Case No. 24-cv-01054-BLF

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING UNOPPOSED 9 v. ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED 11 Defendant.

12 13 On February 22, 2024, this case was transferred from the Western District of Texas to the 14 Northern District of California. ECF No. 86. On May 2, 2024, the Court held a Case 15 Management Conference. ECF No. 120. Pursuant to Local Rule 16-9, the parties filed a timely 16 Joint Case Management Statement (“JCMS”) one week prior on April 25, 2024. ECF No. 118. 17 That same day, Plaintiff eCardless Bancorp, Ltd. filed an Administrative Motion to Seal 18 corresponding to the JCMS. ECF No. 117. On April 29, 2024, the Court denied this motion. 19 ECF No. 119. The Court laid out the Ninth Circuit’s standards for sealing information and the 20 importance of public access to documents. Id. at 1. The Court explained why Plaintiff’s 21 explanations were insufficient to justify sealing, that proposed redactions were not sufficiently 22 narrow, that much of the information sought to be sealed does not appear to be confidential, and 23 that references to a protective order are not sufficient to justify sealing. Id. at 2. The Court gave 24 Plaintiff until May 6, 2024 to file a renewed administrative motion to seal. 25 Plaintiff did not file a renewed motion to seal. Instead, on May 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a 26 second JCMS (ECF No. 127) that does not contain any of the sealed information in the first 27 JCMS, and filed the instant motion, which seeks to remove from the docket the first JCMS (ECF 1 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 2 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 3 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 4 } US. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a “strong 5 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Jd. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 6 Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). 7 While the caption of Plaintiff’s motion suggests that the documents were “Incorrectly 8 Filed,” Plaintiff provides no explanation as to why or how the first JCMS was incorrectly filed. 9 Nor does Plaintiff make any attempt to justify sealing any portion of the first JCMS. Instead, 10 Plaintiff seeks to replace its timely filed first JCMS with a second JCMS filed four days after the 11 Case Management Conference took place. The practical effect of the Plaintiff’s proposed relief is 12 that the first JCMS would remain under seal, despite the Court’s previous order finding that 5 13 || Plaintiff did not justify its sealing. ECF No. 119. Plaintiff’s filings are nothing more than an 14 improper motion for reconsideration and a thinly veiled attempt to circumvent this Court’s prior 3 15 || order, this district’s Civil Local Rules on sealing, and the Ninth Circuit’s strong presumption of a 16 || public access to information. 3 17 As such, Plaintiff’s motion at ECF No. 126 is DENIED and Plaintiff’s filing at ECF No. 18 127 is STRICKEN. Plaintiff may file a renewed administrative motion to seal regarding sealed 19 information in ECF No. 118 no later than May 10, 2024 at 12:00 P.M. 21 22 Dated: May 7, 2024

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28