Neasham & Kramer LLP v. Neff ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NEASHAM & KRAMER, LLP, a No. 2:19-cv-00565-MCE-KJN California Limited Liability Partnership, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 STEPHEN NEFF, an individual, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On October 13, 2021, Defendant Stephen Neff (“Defendant”) filed a notice of 19 request to seal the following documents in their entirety: (1) Defendant’s Motion for 20 Partial Summary Judgment, (2) Defendant’s Declaration in Support of Defendant’s 21 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and (3) Defendant’s Statement of Undisputed 22 Facts Concerning Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 38. Citing to a 23 stipulated protective order issued by the assigned magistrate judge on February 16, 24 2021, Defendant contends that the above documents contain “confidential” information 25 relating to a confidential settlement agreement between the parties and a third party in a 26 related action. Id. at 2; see generally ECF No. 31. Defendant submitted for in camera 27 consideration a Request to Seal Documents, a proposed sealing order, and the 28 documents sought to be sealed. 1 “[The Ninth Circuit] acknowledged explicitly . . . that the strong presumption of 2 || access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including motions for 3 || summary judgment and related attachments.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 4 | 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). “Thus, ‘compelling 5 || reasons’ must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.” Id. 6 | (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)). The 7 || party seeking to seal documents attached to dispositive motions bears the burden of 8 | “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings.” Kamakana, 9 | 447 F.3d at 1178 (citations omitted). “The ‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even 10 | if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective 11 | order.” Id. at 1179. 12 The Court finds that Defendant’s notice and request to seal are insufficient to 13 || establish that there is a compelling reason for sealing the aforementioned documents. 14 || Defendant seeks leave to seal his entire motion for partial summary judgment and 15 || supporting documents based solely on the fact that these documents contain information 16 || that has been identified as confidential in the protective order. “Such wholesale sealing 17 || can rarely be justified, especially in connection with a dispositive motion.” Dakota □□□□□ 18 | Inc. v. Rehabcare Grp., Inc., No. 1:14-cv-02081-DAD-BAM, 2016 WL 6493896, at *2 19 | (E.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2016). Accordingly, Defendant’s request to seal, ECF No. 38, is 20 | DENIED without prejudice. 21 IT |S SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: November 9, 2021 23 J Lat LEK ee NK 4 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28