Vashisht-Rota v. Harrisburg University ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 APARNA VASHISHT-ROTA, an Case No.: 20-CV-967 JLS (KSC) individual, 12 ORDER DENYING WITHOUT Plaintiff, 13 PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION v. TO FILE COMPLAINT, AMENDED 14 COMPLAINT, AND EXHIBITS A–E HARRISBURG UNIVERSITY, 15 UNDER SEAL Defendant. 16 (ECF No. 39) 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Dr. Aparna Vashisht-Rota’s Motion to File 19 Complaint, Amended Complaint, and Exhibit[s] A–E Under Seal (“Mot.,” ECF No. 39). 20 The Motion is unopposed. Having carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s arguments, the documents 21 in question (ECF Nos. 1, 7), and the relevant law, the Court DENIES WITHOUT 22 PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion. 23 LEGAL STANDARD 24 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 25 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 26 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 27 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 28 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 1 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 2 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 3 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 4 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 5 Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 6 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 7 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 8 presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet this burden 9 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 10 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1102. When 11 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 12 reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 13 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id. 14 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 15 disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might have 16 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 17 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 18 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 19 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure 20 to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. (citing 21 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound 22 discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of 23 the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 ANALYSIS 2 Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal her original complaint (ECF No. 1) and 3 Exhibits A through E thereto (ECF Nos. 1-2, 1-3, 1-10)1 and the operative first amended 4 complaint (ECF No. 7). See Mot. at 2. Plaintiff contends that there exists “good cause” to 5 file these documents under seal because “[t]he matter contains documents that are 6 confidential and the parties exist in a highly competitive market.” Id. Plaintiff elsewhere 7 contends that “there is compelling reason to put the matter under seal” because “[t]he 8 materials are under seal in Utah and various courts.” ECF No. 39-2 at 1. There are several 9 issues with Plaintiff’s request. 10 First, “[t]he Ninth Circuit has not explicitly stated the standard—good cause or 11 compelling reasons—that applies to the sealing of a complaint, but . . . courts have held 12 that the compelling reasons standard applies because a complaint is the foundation of a 13 lawsuit.” In re Google Inc. Gmail Litig., No. 13-MD-02430-LHK, 2013 WL 5366963, at 14 *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2013). Plaintiff generally asserts that there exists “good cause” to 15 seal the complaints and exhibits, which does not suffice to meet the “compelling reasons” 16 standard. See ECF No. 39 at 2; ECF No. 39-1 at 2. To the extent that Plaintiff does contend 17 that there exist “compelling reasons,” see ECF No. 39-2 at 1, she fails to “show[] specific 18 prejudice or harm will result if no [protection] is granted.” Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 19 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). 20 Second, Plaintiff’s Motion is overbroad. “Any order sealing documents should be 21 ‘narrowly tailored’ to remove from public view only the material that is protected.” Ervine 22 v. Warden, 214 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (citing Press-Enter. Co. v. Super. 23 Ct., 464 U.S. 501, 513 (1984)). Here, by contrast, Plaintiff seeks leave to file the entirety 24 of her complaint and first amended complaint under seal, including several exhibits, one 25 of which is a court filing that may already be publicly available. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 26 27 1 Although Plaintiff seeks leave to file Exhibits C and D under seal, those exhibits were withdrawn on 28 August 10, 2020, per Plaintiff’s August 8, 2020 Motion to Withdraw Exhibit C and D from the Complaint. 1 Motion also must be denied as overbroad. See, e.g., Bangert v. Cty. of Placer, No. 2:17- 2 || CV-1667 KJN P, 2019 WL 358518, at *13 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2019) (denying motion to 3 as overbroad where the parties seeking to seal did “not discuss any of the individual 4 ||exhibits attached to the [filing], which include[d] public documents such as an article from 5 Sacramento Bee’). 6 Because Plaintiff has failed to meet his burden of establishing “compelling reasons” 7 || sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in narrowly tailored portions of her complaints, 8 Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion. 9 CONCLUSION 10 In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE □□□□□□□□□□ □ 11 ||Motion (ECF No. 39). Plaintiff MAY FILE a renewed motion to file under seal any 12 documents for which “compelling reasons” exist within fourteen (14) days of the electronic 13 || docketing of this Order. See, e.g., Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: August 13, 2020 tt 7 pen Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28