Sacramento Downtown Arena LLC v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: August 13, 2024
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00441
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SACRAMENTO DOWNTOWN ARENA No. 2:21-cv-00441-KJM-SCR LLC; SACRAMENTO KINGS LIMITED 12 PARTNERSHIP; SAC MUBI1 HOTEL, LLC; ORDER 13 and SGD RETAIL LLC, Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 FACTORY MUTUAL INSURANCE 16 | COMPANY, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiffs request this court seal part of a document submitted in support of plaintiffs’ 20 | motion for partial summary judgment. See generally Seal Req. Notice, ECF No. 118. No 21 | opposition was filed. 22 There 1s a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. See Phillips v. 23 | Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “access to judicial records is 24 | not absolute.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). For 25 | dispositive motions, such as a partial motion for summary judgment, a request to seal can be 26 | granted only if the plaintiffs offer a “compelling reason” to keep the information in question from 27 | the public. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096-97 (9th Cir. 2016) 28 | (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179); see also Xie v. De Young Properties 5418, LP,

1 No. 16-01518, 2018 WL 3241068, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 2, 2018). The party seeking to seal must 2 “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings, that outweigh the general 3 history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in 4 understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (internal marks and citations 5 omitted). The compelling-reasons standard applies even if a document was previously filed under 6 seal or was covered by a generalized protective order, including a discovery phase protective 7 order. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). “Sources of 8 business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing” may provide a compelling 9 reason to seal documents. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). 10 Here, plaintiffs seek to seal the second and third pages of a letter. According to plaintiffs, 11 these pages should be sealed because they “contain[] highly sensitive business information: non- 12 public revenue, losses, and tenant rent information.” Seal Req. Notice at 2. While courts in this 13 circuit have granted requests to seal limited amounts of business information, such requests have 14 been granted when movants specifically explain how disclosure of the information would harm 15 them. See Berlanga v. Polaris Indus., Inc., No. 21-00949, 2023 WL 2752483, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 16 Mar. 31, 2023) (collecting cases). 17 In this request, plaintiffs have not provided the court with enough information to grant 18 their request to seal the second page of the letter, which contains plaintiffs’ representation of the 19 loss amounts in this matter. Cf. Ross v. Bar None Enterprises, Inc., No. 13-00234, 20 2014 WL 2700901, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 13, 2014) (finding party had not made a particularized 21 showing of good cause to seal profit-and-loss statements and balance sheets). The sparse 22 explanation included in the request does not “articulate the factual basis” for sealing this 23 information “without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Thus, 24 on the current record, the court is unable to conclude plaintiffs will suffer any competitive 25 disadvantage if the lump sum losses they incurred during a few months in 2020 were disclosed. 26 However, as to sealing the tenant rent information contained in the chart on page three, the 27 court finds plaintiffs have provided detailed factual reasons sufficient to meet the compelling- 28 reasons standard. See, e.g., United States v. Chen, No. 17-00603, 2022 WL 2789557, at *2 (N.D. 1 | Cal. July 14, 2022) (collecting cases and finding “[t]here are ‘compelling reasons’ to seal 2 | documents containing proprietary business information, including pricing and other negotiated 3 | terms”). These reasons do not support sealing the entire chart, which also includes tenants’ 4 | names and when these tenants opened and closed during 2020. Therefore, only the portion of the 5 | chart that contains tenant rent information shall be sealed. 6 In sum, the court grants in part and denies in part plaintiffs’ request to seal. The request 7 | is denied as to sealing the second page of the letter containing information on plaintiffs’ loss 8 | amounts. The request is granted as to sealing only the tenant rent information contained in the 9 | right eleven columns of the chart on page three. Plaintiffs are directed to file Exhibit 60 on the 10 | public docket within seven (7) days of this order. In accordance with this order, only the eleven 11 | columns from “Monthly Rent (Aug. 2020)” to “Approximate Total Losses / Deferrals” shall be 12 | redacted. 13 The Clerk of Court shall file the Request to Seal on the public docket, and shall file the 14 | attached Exhibit 60 under seal to preserve the record with respect to plaintiffs’ request. 15 This order resolves ECF No. 118. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 | DATED: August 12, 2024. 18 19 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28