Filed: Feb. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 16, 2018
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Seal. Dkt. #135. Plaintiff filed Exhibits EE and FF to the Supplemental Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under seal. Dkts. #136, #137. Plaintiff filed the exhibits under seal as they were marked "Confidential" by Defendant under the parties' Protective Order. Dkt. #135 1-2. Plai
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL RICARDO S. MARTINEZ , Chief District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Seal. Dkt. #135. Plaintiff filed Exhibits EE and FF to the Supplemental Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under seal. Dkts. #136, #137. Plaintiff filed the exhibits under seal as they were marked "Confidential" by Defendant under the parties' Protective Order. Dkt. #135 1-2. Plain..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, Chief District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Seal. Dkt. #135. Plaintiff filed Exhibits EE and FF to the Supplemental Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment under seal. Dkts. #136, #137. Plaintiff filed the exhibits under seal as they were marked "Confidential" by Defendant under the parties' Protective Order. Dkt. #135 ¶¶ 1-2. Plaintiff does not argue that the exhibits should be kept under seal. Id. Defendant's also does not argue that the exhibits should be kept under seal and consents to the Court unsealing the exhibits.1 Dkt. #138.
"There is a strong presumption of public access to the court's files." Local Rule CR 5(g). The Court will not grant broad authority to file documents under seal simply because the parties have designated them as confidential in the course of discovery. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006). As related to dispositive motions, a party seeking to maintain the secrecy of documents must meet the high threshold of showing that "compelling reasons" support secrecy. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. "In general, `compelling reasons' sufficient to outweigh the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such `court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes,' such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets." Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)).
The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff's Motion, Defendant's Response, and the remainder of the record, finds that no compelling reason supports sealing Exhibits EE and FF to the Supplemental Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (Dkt. #135) is DENIED and that Exhibits EE and FF to the Supplemental Declaration of Scott C.G. Blankenship in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkts. #136 and #137) shall be immediately UNSEALED BY THE CLERK.
