Flowers-Carter v. Braun Corporation

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Latricia Flowers-Carter, et al., No. CV-18-03836-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Braun Corporation,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to seal. (Doc. 144.) For 16 the reasons stated below, the motion is denied without prejudice. 17 The public has a general right to inspect judicial records and documents, such that 18 a party seeking to seal a judicial record must overcome “a strong presumption in favor of 19 access.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). To 20 do so, the party must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings 21 that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 22 disclosure . . . .” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court 23 must then “conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who 24 seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks 25 omitted). “After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial 26 records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for 27 its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotation marks 28 omitted). 1 The “stringent” compelling reasons standard applies to all filed motions and their 2 attachments where the motion is “more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” 3 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). 4 Here, Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Doc. 143) regards emails that “describe facts central to 5 the parties’ claims and defenses” and that are assertedly “the sole competent, objective 6 evidence regarding Defendant’s intentions and actions with regard to Plaintiffs.” (Doc. 7 143 at 5.) Thus, the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, and 8 the “compelling reasons” standard applies. 9 To justify sealing, Plaintiffs assert that the documents at issue were designated as 10 confidential and “contain sensitive or proprietary information.” (Doc. 144 at 2.) These 11 arguments are unavailing. First, the protective order in this case specifically explains that 12 documents marked as confidential can’t be automatically filed under seal—instead, the 13 party wishing to seal them must explain, with particularity, why the applicable sealing 14 standard has been satisfied. (Doc. 87 at 5-6 [“Nothing in this order shall be construed as 15 automatically permitting a party to file under seal. The party seeking leave of Court shall 16 show ‘compelling reasons’ (where the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits 17 of the case) or ‘good cause’ for filing under seal.”). Second, although it is sometimes 18 permissible to file “sensitive or proprietary information” under seal, here Plaintiffs haven’t 19 attempted to explain why the particular items at issue actually qualify as proprietary. Put 20 simply, Plaintiffs have not attempted to “articulate compelling reasons supported by 21 specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 22 favoring disclosure . . . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (emphasis added); see also 23 LRCiv 5.6(b) (“Any motion or stipulation to file a document under seal must set forth a 24 clear statement of the facts and legal authority justifying the filing of the document under 25 seal . . . .”) 26 Thus, the motion is denied without prejudice. To the extent that Plaintiffs wish to 27 try again, they must include—for each document they wish to file under seal—a specific 28 description of the document and compelling reasons for sealing that document, supported by specific facts. The more specific and compelling the reasons and facts provided are, the more likely it is that the Court will find that compelling reasons justify sealing the 3|| documents. To facilitate the Court’s review, the unredacted version of the documents, which should be lodged under seal pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(c), must include highlighting to 5 || indicate which portions of the document Plaintiffs seek to redact. 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Plaintiffs’ motion to seal (Doc. 144). 8 Dated this 3rd day of April, 2020.

10 fi 11 United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-2-