Paynter v. UBS Financial Services Incorporated

Opinion

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

9 William J Paynter, No. CV-21-02024-PHX-DJH

10 Petitioner, ORDER

11 v.

12 UBS Financial Services Incorporated, et al.,

13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 21). 16 The parties seek to file under seal documents that they determined were confidential 17 pursuant to an agreement (the “Agreement”) made during settlement discussions. 18 In the Ninth Circuit, there is a strong presumption that the public has right to 19 access court documents. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 20 (9th Cir. 2003). A party seeking to seal a document from public view must give 21 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. Kamakana v. City & County 22 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). A court’s decision to seal certain 23 records cannot be based in “hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. 24 Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). Generally, compelling reasons exist 25 when documents might become “a vehicle for improper purposes,” such as the release of 26 trade secrets. Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 27 (1978)). 28 The parties have failed to convince the Court that compelling reasons exist to 1 || peremptorily seal unspecified documents they believe are confidential. Indeed, the 2|| parties do not actually describe the documents they believe should be shielded from || public view, and only insinuate that they “are the type of documents that merit protection 4|| from the public eye.” (Doc. 21 at 7). Their Agreement, however, states “confidential” 5 || information includes “all” material not generally available to the public. (Doc. 21 at 7). 6|| The parties’ “confidential” designation is thus much broader than the protections that 7\| may be afforded to documents sought to be used in public litigation in this Circuit. The 8 || Court will not grant a motion to seal based on such hypothesis or conjecture. See 9|| Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. 10 The parties argue the fact that they have agreed certain information is confidential |} provides a sufficiently compelling reason to seal this information. But litigants do not 12 || overcome the “strong presumption in favor” of public access to court documents simply 13 || because they agree the public need not see something. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. || There must be a compelling reason beyond the parties’ wants, and the parties’ Motion fail 15 || to provide one. 16 Accordingly, 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to File Under Seal 18]| (Doc. 21) is denied. 19 Dated this 12th day of April, 2022. 20 21 5 ip Gum □□ 22 norable’Dian¢g4. Hurietewa 3 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28

_2-