Naturetrak, Inc. v. Jontae James, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NATURETRAK, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-0540-DC-JDP 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JONTAE JAMES, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Naturetrak, Inc. and defendant Jontae James, Sean Kammerich, and Hybrid 18 Financial Services Group entered into a settlement agreement on December 9, 2025. Pending 19 before the court are plaintiff’s request to seal documents, ECF No. 49, and motion to enforce the 20 settlement agreement, ECF No. 50. Plaintiff’s request to seal is denied. Plaintiff shall, within 21 fourteen days, file a renewed motion to enforce that complies with the court’s local rules and the 22 parties’ protective order. 23 Courts have recognized “a general right to inspect and copy public records and 24 documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 25 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong 26 presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 27 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 28 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to file a document under seal “bears the burden of 1 overcoming this strong presumption by” articulating “compelling reasons supported by specific 2 factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 3 disclosure . . . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (citations omitted). 4 “[T]he mere fact that the parties’ settlement agreement may contain a confidentiality 5 provision, without more, does not constitute a compelling reason to seal the information.” Helix 6 Environmental Planning Inc. v. Helix Environmental and Strategic Solutions, No. 3:18-cv-02000- 7 AJB-AHG, 2021 WL 120829, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2021); see also FTC v. AMG Servs., No. 8 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF, 2020 U.S. Dist. Lexis 232231, at *5 (D. Nev. Dec. 10, 2020) (“[T]he 9 confidentiality of the settlement agreement alone does not provide a compelling reason to seal.”). 10 Under the court’s local rules, “[d]ocuments may be sealed only by written order of the 11 Court, upon a showing required by applicable law.” E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(a). A party seeking to 12 file documents under seal must submit a Request to Seal Documents, which “shall set forth the 13 statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, 14 of persons to be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” E.D. Cal. 15 L.R. 141(b). 16 Plaintiff fails to specifically address how the documents it requests to be filed under seal 17 meet the compelling reason standard for sealing. See Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1179; see also 18 Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012 WL 59886570, at *1 (N.D. Ca. Nov. 29, 2012). Plaintiff 19 states that the documents “describe the terms and conditions of the parties’ settlement agreement 20 that are subject to a contractual provision requiring nondisclosure” and the parties agreed at the 21 settlement conference to keep these documents confidential. ECF No. 49-1 at 3. Plaintiff argues 22 that the public policy interest of fostering settlement is a compelling and specific reason to seal 23 these documents. Id. Plaintiff also notes that it used the “least restrictive method to ensure 24 confidentiality” by sealing only certain portions of the motion to enforce and accompanying 25 declaration. Id. 26 Plaintiff’s conclusory statements do not provide adequate justification for sealing. It is 27 true that courts in the Ninth Circuit have in certain instances accepted private confidentiality 28 agreements as “good cause” justification for sealing non-dispositive motions and ancillary 1 documents, see, e.g., Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark, No. C13-5071JLR, 2013 WL 2 6086075, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 19, 2013), but the mere fact that the parties’ settlement 3 agreement may contain a confidentiality provision, without more, does not constitute a 4 compelling reason to seal the information, see Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137-38 (finding that the 5 “compelling reasons” standard applies to a motion to enforce settlement agreement because 6 granting that motion would “serve as a substitute for trial” and dispose of this proceeding); see 7 also Select Portfolio Servicing v. Valentino, No. C 12-0334 SI, 2013 WL 1800039, at *3 (N.D. 8 Cal. Apr. 29, 2013) (“That [the parties] agreed among themselves to keep the settlement details 9 private, without more, is no reason to shield the information from . . . the public at large.”); Helix 10 Env’t Plan., Inc., 2021 WL 120829, at *1. More fundamentally, plaintiff asks that the court 11 enforce the terms of the settlement agreement and because those terms are at issue, it is essential 12 that the public be allowed to view the terms to understand these proceedings. 13 This court acknowledges the general benefits of keeping settlement discussions and 14 agreements confidential when feasible, and that the parties here may prefer to keep the details of 15 their settlement private; “[h]owever, once [parties] turn to the federal court to resolve their 16 disputes. . . ., the public administration of justice demands transparency.” Polaris Innovations 17 Ltd. v. Kingston Tech. Co., Inc., No. SACV 16-00300-CJC(RAOx), 2017 WL 2806897, at *8 18 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2017). The court also acknowledges plaintiff’s effort to redact only certain 19 portions of the motion to enforce and the accompanying declaration, but, as noted above, the 20 court needs to consider the entire settlement agreement to properly adjudicate the motion to 21 enforce. 22 Plaintiff will be provided fourteen days to file a motion to enforce and any accompanying 23 declaration that complies with the court’s local rules and the parties’ protective order. 24 25 26 27 28 ] Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 2 1. Plaintiff?s motion to seal, ECF No. 49, is DENIED. 3 2. Plaintiff □□ granted fourteen days from the date of this order to file a motion to enforce 4 | and any accompanying declaration that complies with the court’s local rules and the parties’ 5 || protective order. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _ April 9, 2026 aw—— 9 JEREMY D. PETERSON 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28