Southern Counties Oil Company v. Henry

Opinion

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

9 Southern Counties Oil Company, No. CV-18-02307-PHX-DWL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Lucas Henry, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to seal. (Doc. 83.) For the 16 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 21 findings 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 23 Court must then “conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the 24 party who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation 25 marks omitted). “After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain 26 judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual 27 basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. (internal quotation 28 marks 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, Defendants’ motion to extend case deadlines is based on the assertion that Plaintiff 5 recently “revealed a new category of damages it will seek to recover,” which are “related 6 to the sale of its southwest division to West Direct,” and that Plaintiff failed to timely 7 supplement its mandatory initial discovery responses in a timely manner, such that 8 Defendants were unaware of the documents supporting the newly asserted damages. 9 (Doc. 81 at 2-3.) Defendants further assert that Plaintiff “has greatly raised the stakes in 10 this case,” as there has been a “seven-fold increase in damages” sought (from $1 million 11 to $7 million). (Id. at 4.) Thus, the motion is more than tangentially related to the merits 12 of the case, and the “compelling reasons” standard applies. 13 Defendants give no reasons whatsoever to justify sealing, other than the assertion 14 that the documents at issue were designated as confidential. (Doc. 215 at 2.) Defendants 15 have not attempted to “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual 16 findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 17 disclosure . . . .” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (emphasis added); see also LRCiv 18 5.6(b) (“Any motion or stipulation to file a document under seal must set forth a clear 19 statement of the facts and legal authority justifying the filing of the document under 20 seal . . . .”) 21 Thus, the motion is denied without prejudice. To the extent that Defendants wish 22 to try again, they must include—for each document they wish to file under seal—a 23 specific description of the document and compelling reasons for sealing that document, 24 supported by specific facts. The more specific and compelling the reasons and facts 25 provided are, the more likely it is that the Court will find that compelling reasons justify 26 sealing the documents. 27 Accordingly, 28 … 1 IT IS ORDERED denying without prejudice Defendants’ motion to seal (Doc. 2|| 83). 3 Dated this 18th day of November, 2019. 4 5 _

7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-