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

Opinion

ECARDLESS BANCORP, LTD., Case No. 24-cv-01054-BLF

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND v. DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION [Re: ECF No. 129] Defendant.

Before the court is Plaintiff eCardless Bancorp, Ltd.’s Amended Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. ECF No. 129. For the reasons described below, the administrative motion is “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Id. (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action” bear the burden of overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016); Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Records attached to motions that are “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action.”). Parties moving to seal the documents attached to such motions must meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c). Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (internal quotations and citations omitted). This standard requires a “particularized showing,” id., that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). Plaintiff seeks to seal selected portions of two exhibits attached to its JCMS. ECF No. 129. Plaintiff writes that the Exhibit 1 should be sealed because it is an “[o]rder issued as sealed by the Transferor Court (Western District of Texas) in this litigation. Under the Doctrine of Comity, this Court should not revisit the order previously issued by another district court prior to the transfer.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff writes that Exhibit 2 should be sealed because “[t]o the extent Mr. Sines’ Will is relevant to any issue in dispute in this litigation (eCardless maintains that it is not), the purported relevance is tangential at best.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff argues that the redactions are narrowly tailored. Id. at 2. The Court finds that good cause exists to seal certain portions of Exhibit 2, but not Exhibit 1. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. The Court also finds that the request is narrowly tailored for Exhibit 2. The Court’s ruling is summarized below: \\ \\ \\ \\ ECF or Document Portion(s) to Seal 2 Exhibit No. ECF No. _ | Exhibit 3 to Entirety DENIED. Plaintiff provides no 3 129-3, Ex. | JCMS, Sealed legal basis for its comity 1 Order on argument. More importantly, 4 January 24, contrary to Plaintiff’s 5 2024 Discovery representations, the order is not Dispute (Dkt. sealed. See eCardless Bancorp, 6 76 and 117-3). Ltd. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. et al, 7:22-cv-00245-ADA-DTG at 7 ECF No. 76 (docket text) (“Unsealed on 2/1/2024. Per 8 chambers, order is to be unsealed 9 due to no redactions by counsel.”’) ECE No. Exhibit 7 to e Individual names and GRANTED, as the Court finds 10 129-4, Ex. | JCMS, August financial percentages that the information sought to be 2 17, 2023 Will contained at native pp. 3- | sealed is personal in nature. The 11 of Randy D. 4 of the Will Court may revisit this ruling at a 10 Sines (“Will”) (eCardless_000018 31- | later time. (ECF No. 117- 32); and B 10). Document |* Names and personal produced by addresses of two 14 Plaintiff as witnesses who signed the eCardless_0000 Will contained at native 1829-1837 p. 9 (eCardless_000018 A 16 37).

= 17 II. ORDER

18 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the administrative motion is 19 GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff SHALL file an unredacted version of 20 the JCMS and its corresponding exhibits (ECF Nos. 117, 118), with redactions limited those 21 granted in this order no later than May 23, 2024. 22 23 Dated: May 10, 2024

BETH LABSON FREEMAN 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28