1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST KRAUSE, et al., No. 2:23-cv-02307-DAD-DB 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO SEAL 14 MANJARI CHAWLA, et al., (Doc. No. 34) 15 Defendants.
16 17 On December 1, 2023, defendants Manjari Chawla, Leah Wilson, Ruben Duran, George 18 Cardona, Ryan Chin, Tiffany Sorensen, Michael Nguyen, and the State Bar of California (“State 19 Bar Defendants”) filed a notice of their request to seal documents (“the Documents”) filed in 20 support of their opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Local 21 Rule 141. (Doc. No. 34.) In their notice, defendants describe the Documents as containing 22 “information regarding an applicant for admission to the practice of law . . . .” (Id. at 2.) 23 Consistent with Local Rule 141(b), defendants separately provided the court via e-mail with their 24 request to seal and a copy of the Documents. (Req. at 11–16). Plaintiffs likewise provided to the 25 court via email their opposition to the pending request to seal. For the reasons explained below, 26 defendants’ request to seal the Documents will be denied. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, 3 Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits 4 of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”). 5 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 6 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 7 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 8 597 & n.7 (1978)). 9 Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 10 Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). The standards used are based on the type of motion to 11 which the documents to be sealed are attached: 12 [W]e treat judicial records attached to dispositive motions differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek 13 to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” 14 support secrecy. A “good cause” showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. 15 16 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 17 1135, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). The reason for these two different standards is that “[n]ondispositive 18 motions are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action, and, as 19 a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does not apply with equal force to 20 non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citations and internal quotation marks 21 omitted). 22 Under the “compelling reasons” standard applicable to dispositive motions: 23 [T]he court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 24 secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling 25 reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. 26 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Id. at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks, omissions, and citations omitted). The party seeking to 2 seal a judicial record bears the burden of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178; 3 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. 4 While the terms “dispositive” and “non-dispositive” motions are often used in this 5 context, the Ninth Circuit has clarified that the “compelling reasons” standard applies whenever 6 the motion at issue “is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety 7 v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). In some instances, the proposed 8 filing of documents under seal in connection with motions for preliminary injunctions, motions 9 for sanctions, or motions in limine—though such motions are not dispositive—may be governed 10 by the “compelling reasons” test, which is predicated on the right of access and the need to 11 “provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better 12 perception of its fairness.” Id. at 1097–1101 (quoting Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., 13 Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 161 (3d Cir. 1993)). In keeping with this principle, requests to seal 14 documents relating to motions for a preliminary injunction have been found by the Ninth Circuit 15 to “more than tangentially relate[] to the merits” because success on the motion for a preliminary 16 injunction would have resolved a portion of the claims in the underlying complaint. Ctr. for Auto 17 Safety, LLC, 809 F.3d at 1102. 18 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist when 19 such ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to 20 gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 21 secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact that the 22 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to 23 further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. “The 24 ‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were 25 previously filed under seal or protective order.” Id. at 1178–79. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 ANALYSIS 2 State Bar Defendants argue that the Documents contain confidential information 3 pertaining to plaintiffs and that State Bar Defendants are prohibited from disclosing that 4 information by California Business and Professions Code § 6060.25. (Req. at 2.) 5 California Business and Professions Code § 6060.25 states in relevant part: 6 Notwithstanding any other law, any identifying information submitted by an applicant to the State Bar for admission and a 7 license to practice law and all State Bar admission records . . . and any information contained within the State Bar Admissions 8 database or any file or other data created by the State Bar with information submitted by the applicant that may identify an 9 individual applicant, other than information described in subdivision (b), shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed 10 pursuant to any state law . . . . 11 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6060.25. 12 In their opposition to the pending request to seal, plaintiffs argue that the request to seal 13 should be denied because the State Bar Defendants have already disclosed similar information 14 and disclosure of the Documents would have little to no impact on plaintiffs. (Oppo. at 2.) 15 Defendants do not cite to any authority suggesting that a federal court must seal 16 documents containing information protected from disclosure by § 6060.25 of the California 17 Business & Professions Code.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST KRAUSE, et al., No. 2:23-cv-02307-DAD-DB 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST TO SEAL 14 MANJARI CHAWLA, et al., (Doc. No. 34) 15 Defendants.
16 17 On December 1, 2023, defendants Manjari Chawla, Leah Wilson, Ruben Duran, George 18 Cardona, Ryan Chin, Tiffany Sorensen, Michael Nguyen, and the State Bar of California (“State 19 Bar Defendants”) filed a notice of their request to seal documents (“the Documents”) filed in 20 support of their opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Local 21 Rule 141. (Doc. No. 34.) In their notice, defendants describe the Documents as containing 22 “information regarding an applicant for admission to the practice of law . . . .” (Id. at 2.) 23 Consistent with Local Rule 141(b), defendants separately provided the court via e-mail with their 24 request to seal and a copy of the Documents. (Req. at 11–16). Plaintiffs likewise provided to the 25 court via email their opposition to the pending request to seal. For the reasons explained below, 26 defendants’ request to seal the Documents will be denied. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, 3 Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits 4 of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”). 5 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 6 documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 7 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 8 597 & n.7 (1978)). 9 Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 10 Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). The standards used are based on the type of motion to 11 which the documents to be sealed are attached: 12 [W]e treat judicial records attached to dispositive motions differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek 13 to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that “compelling reasons” 14 support secrecy. A “good cause” showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions. 15 16 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 17 1135, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). The reason for these two different standards is that “[n]ondispositive 18 motions are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action, and, as 19 a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does not apply with equal force to 20 non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citations and internal quotation marks 21 omitted). 22 Under the “compelling reasons” standard applicable to dispositive motions: 23 [T]he court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 24 secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling 25 reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. 26 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Id. at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks, omissions, and citations omitted). The party seeking to 2 seal a judicial record bears the burden of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178; 3 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. 4 While the terms “dispositive” and “non-dispositive” motions are often used in this 5 context, the Ninth Circuit has clarified that the “compelling reasons” standard applies whenever 6 the motion at issue “is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety 7 v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). In some instances, the proposed 8 filing of documents under seal in connection with motions for preliminary injunctions, motions 9 for sanctions, or motions in limine—though such motions are not dispositive—may be governed 10 by the “compelling reasons” test, which is predicated on the right of access and the need to 11 “provide the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system and a better 12 perception of its fairness.” Id. at 1097–1101 (quoting Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Techs., 13 Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 161 (3d Cir. 1993)). In keeping with this principle, requests to seal 14 documents relating to motions for a preliminary injunction have been found by the Ninth Circuit 15 to “more than tangentially relate[] to the merits” because success on the motion for a preliminary 16 injunction would have resolved a portion of the claims in the underlying complaint. Ctr. for Auto 17 Safety, LLC, 809 F.3d at 1102. 18 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist when 19 such ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to 20 gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 21 secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact that the 22 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to 23 further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. “The 24 ‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were 25 previously filed under seal or protective order.” Id. at 1178–79. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 ANALYSIS 2 State Bar Defendants argue that the Documents contain confidential information 3 pertaining to plaintiffs and that State Bar Defendants are prohibited from disclosing that 4 information by California Business and Professions Code § 6060.25. (Req. at 2.) 5 California Business and Professions Code § 6060.25 states in relevant part: 6 Notwithstanding any other law, any identifying information submitted by an applicant to the State Bar for admission and a 7 license to practice law and all State Bar admission records . . . and any information contained within the State Bar Admissions 8 database or any file or other data created by the State Bar with information submitted by the applicant that may identify an 9 individual applicant, other than information described in subdivision (b), shall be confidential and shall not be disclosed 10 pursuant to any state law . . . . 11 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6060.25. 12 In their opposition to the pending request to seal, plaintiffs argue that the request to seal 13 should be denied because the State Bar Defendants have already disclosed similar information 14 and disclosure of the Documents would have little to no impact on plaintiffs. (Oppo. at 2.) 15 Defendants do not cite to any authority suggesting that a federal court must seal 16 documents containing information protected from disclosure by § 6060.25 of the California 17 Business & Professions Code. Neither do defendants argue that disclosure of the Documents 18 would “become a vehicle for improper purposes” such as to “gratify private spite, promote public 19 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 20 Further, plaintiffs appear to have expressly waived any protection afforded by the provision. Cf. 21 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6060.25(b) (permitting disclosure “at the request of an applicant to 22 another jurisdiction where the applicant is seeking admission to the practice of law” or when a 23 law school graduate “consents to the release of the graduate’s scores to the law school”). 24 Accordingly, defendants’ request to file the Documents under seal pursuant to Local Rule 25 141 (Doc. No. 34) will be denied. 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons explained above, 3 1. Defendant’s request to seal (Doc. No. 34) is denied; 4 2. Defendants shall file the unredacted version of their opposition to the pending 5 motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. No. 15) no later than December 8, 2023; 6 and 7 3. Plaintiffs shall file their reply to State Bar Defendants’ opposition by no later than 8 December 11, 2023. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ December 6, 2023 Del A. 2, sy 11 DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28