MARTIN R. BARASH, Bankruptcy Judge.
Creditors The 1979 Ehrlich Investment Trust, Lee Investment Company LP, Lurline Gardens Limited Housing Partnership, Rexford Development Corp., and Rexford Development of Nevada LLC (collectively, "Claimants") filed on Friday, June 3, 2016, at 3:06 p.m., their Motion for Order Directing Parties To File Documents Under Seal Under LBR 5003-2, For Hearing on USF&G's Objections to Claim Nos, 17 Through 21 and Other Contested Matters (Case Dkt. 295) (the "Motion").
The Motion requests an order, pursuant to Bankruptcy Code section 107, authorizing and requiring all parties in interest to file under seal any "Confidential Information" filed in connection with the pending objections to the Claimants' claims in these cases by creditor United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company ("USF&G") and other contested matters.
Prior to the filing of the Motion, the Court had conducted three status conferences during the month of May to discuss scheduling and discovery in connection with these heavily litigated claim objections. As a result of these status conferences, and their own efforts to meet and confer, USF&G, the Claimants and the Debtor entered into several discovery stipulations to date.
The first is the Stipulation and Protective Order re Documents To Be Produced By Creditors (Case Dkt. 282) and the Order thereon (Case Dkt. 285) (collectively, the "Protective Order"). The second is the Stipulation re Discovery Plan re USF&G's Objections to Claim Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 and re Debtor's Motion to Determine Non-Insider Status (Case Dkt. 294) and the Order thereon (Case Dkt. 297) (collectively, the "Discovery and Scheduling Stipulation").
The Protective Order defines certain information as "Confidential Information," and requires any party that seeks to utilize Confidential Information in a pleading filed with the Court to obtain the authority of the Court to file such pleading under seal:
Protective Order at ¶¶ 4-5. The term "Confidential Information" is defined broadly:
Pursuant to the Discovery and Scheduling Stipulation, the deadline for Claimants and certain other parties in interest to file any supplemental pleadings, declarations and documentary evidence in support of their claims is Monday, June 6, 2016. The deadline for objecting creditor USF&G to file any supplemental pleadings, declarations and documentary evidence is June 10, 2016. It appears that Claimants are seeking relief with respect to the filing of Confidential Information under seal in advance of these filing deadlines.
Access to papers filed in a bankruptcy case is governed by Bankruptcy Code section 107(a). See Father M v. Various Tort Claimants (In re Roman Catholic Archbishop), 661 F.3d 417, 429-31 (9th Cir. 2011). Bankruptcy Code section 107(a) creates a strong presumption in favor of public access to all papers filed in a bankruptcy case:
11 U.S.C. § 107(a). The only exception potentially applicable here is under Bankruptcy Code section 107(b), which provides:
11 U.S.C. § 107(b). Rule 9018 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure parallels the foregoing statute, providing:
Under Bankruptcy Code section 107(b) (and Rule 9018) information "is not commercial simply because it relates to business affairs." Robbins v. Tripp, 510 B.R. 61, 67 (E.D. Va. 2014). Rather, it is "information which would cause `unfair advantage to competitors by providing them information as to the commercial operations of the [subject entity]." Video Software Dealers Ass'n v. Orion Pictures Corp. (In re Orion Pictures Corp.), 21 F.3d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1994), citing In re Itel Corp., 17 B.R. 942, 944 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1982).
Local Bankruptcy Rule 5003-2(c) addresses the process of requesting authority to file a pleading under seal:
In turn, the Court Manual describes the process and the requirements for filing a motion requesting such authority:
Court Manual, § 2.8.
By the Motion, the Claimants appear to be asking the Court for blanket authorization to file Confidential Information under seal, and to require the filing of Confidential Information under seal, without knowing the substance of that information and without having any way to determine whether it actually qualifies for protection under Bankruptcy Code section 107 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9018. The Court cannot and will not make determinations under these provisions in a vacuum.
First, the Claimants have not complied with Section 2.8 of the Court Manual, which is applicable pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 5003-2(c). Specifically, they have not: included "as exhibits, or in a separate appendix also filed electronically, the documents that the movant seeks to file under seal with the confidential portions redacted." Nor have the Claimants filed a declaration under penalty of perjury testifying to the voluminous nature of the documents and a schedule of the documents that movant seeks to file under seal.
Second, even if the Claimants had complied with Section 2.8, the Court likely would need to review the actual information and documents that the parties claim are entitled to filing under seal. By virtue of the broad definition of "Confidential Information," the Claimants and USF&G are required to seek the filing under seal of any document produced by the Claimants to USF&G and any information contained therein. But only those documents and information that meet the standards of Bankruptcy Code section 107 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9018 may be filed under seal.
The Claimants state in the Motion that "Debtor and all five Claimants are privately-held companies. They do not want their private, confidential financial information to be made public." But the Claimants—each of which elected to file proofs of claim in this case—do not have a general right to maintain the privacy of information discovered in this case and used in litigating objections to their proofs of claim. They only have a right to maintain the privacy of such information that is actually entitled to protection under Bankruptcy Code section 107 and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9018.
To be sure, the Claimants make other arguments, but the Court is not in a position to assess these arguments without access to the documents and information that are at issue. For instance, the Claimants contend that the public filing of the subject documents and information may result in competitive disadvantage to Claimants. But there is no evidence to support this contention and no way to determine whether it is factually correct (or even plausible) without knowing seeing the documents and the information they seek to protect. The Claimants also argue that certain (or all) of the documents and information they have produced in the claims litigation are entitled to protection because they were filed under seal in another proceeding. But again, there are no specifics provided, let alone evidence.
For these reasons, the Motion will be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. However, the Court will establish the following procedures so that the parties can timely meet the briefing schedule set forth in the Discovery and Scheduling Stipulation, but also protect the Confidential Information from public disclosure pending the Court's determination of a motion for authority to file the brief (or other materials) under seal pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 5003-2: