Gillis v. In-Shape Family Fitness, LLC ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Lucia Gillis, et al., No. 2:23-cv-01474-KJM-CSK. 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. In-Shape Family Fitness, LLC, 1S Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiffs request the court seal the unredacted version of their Ex Parte Petition to 18 | Approve Settlement of a Claim for a Person with a Disability, the supporting declaration and the 19 | copy of the settlement agreement. See Notice Req. Seal, ECF No. 31. Specifically, plaintiffs 20 | seek to redact the monetary amount specified in the petition and supporting documents. The 21 | court denies the motion without prejudice. 22 “(T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records 23 | and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 24 | 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (footnotes omitted). “Unless a particular court record is one 25 | ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 26 | Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm 27 | Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). When a party moves to seal a record, 28 | the court determines whether the underlying filing is “more than tangentially related to the merits 1 | ofacase.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). If 2 | so, then a party seeking to seal the record must satisfy the “stringent” compelling reasons 3 | standard. /d. at 1096. “That is, the party must articulate compelling reasons supported by 4 | specific factual findings[.]” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (internal marks and citation omitted). 5 As plaintiffs acknowledge, the petition is a dispositive motion aimed at resolving the 6 | parties’ dispute and is therefore, “more than tangentially related to the merits” of this case. See 7 | Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1101. Thus, plaintiffs must meet the compelling reasons 8 | standard to seal documents related to the petition. Cf, e.g., MF. v. United States, No. 13-1790, 9 | 2015 WL 630946, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 12, 2015) (compelling reasons standard applies to 10 | requests to seal related to approval of minor’s settlement because it is dispositive of the 11 | proceedings and collecting cases). 12 Here, plaintiffs argue there is a compelling reason to redact those provisions in light of the 13 | public policy that promotes and encourages settlements. However, apart from listing other cases, 14 | plaintiffs do not explain how disclosing the settlement amount in this case will discourage 15 | settlements generally. Plaintiffs have not supported their request with any specific factual 16 | findings or analysis. Based on this record, the court finds plaintiffs have not satisfied the 17 | stringent compelling reasons standard. The request to seal is denied without prejudice to 18 | renewal. Plaintiffs are directed to promptly file their “Request to Seal Documents,” which does 19 | not disclose any settlement amount, on the public docket. Any renewed request to seal shall be 20 | filed within fourteen (14) days of the filing date of this order. Otherwise, plaintiffs shall file the 21 | petition and accompanying declaration and exhibit within fourteen (14) days of the filing date of 22 | this order. 23 This order resolves ECF No. 31. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 DATED: May 30, 2024. / / 26 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45