Richard Dent v. National Football League ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 RICHARD DENT, J.D. HILL, JAMES MCMAHON, JEREMY NEWBERRY, 11 RON PRITCHARD, RON STONE, KEITH No. C 14-02324 WHA VAN HORNE, AND MARCELLUS 12 WILEY, 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL 14 v. 15 NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, 16 Defendant. 17 18 The public has “a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 19 including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 20 597 (1978). “This right is justified by the interest of citizens in keeping a watchful eye on the 21 workings of public agencies.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 22 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 23 “Unless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in 24 favor of access is the starting point. A party seeking a judicial record then bears the burden of 25 overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard. That is, the 26 party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings, that outweigh 27 the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public 1 the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 2 secret.” Id. at 1178-79 (cleaned up). 3 “What constitutes a compelling reason is best left to the sound discretion of the trial 4 court. Examples include when a court record might be used to gratify private spite or promote 5 public scandal, to circulate libelous statements, or as sources of business information that 6 might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 7 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016) (citations omitted). 8 Under our local rules, requests to seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of 9 sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(d).” Civ. L.R. 79-5(b). “Reference 10 to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as 11 confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable.” 12 14 The NFL has filed an administrative motion to file under seal the entirety of many 3 15 documents it has filed in support of its motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs 16 designated the documents as “confidential” pursuant to the protective order in this case, and 3 17 because the documents contain plaintiffs’ personally identifiable health information. 18 The “confidential” designations are overbroad, and plaintiffs have filed no declarations in 19 support of keeping the documents secret from the public as required by our local rules. 20 Therefore, the motion is DENIED. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: December 17, 2021 Ls Pee 26 WILLIAM ALSUP 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28