RONALD S.W. LEW, Senior District Judge.
Currently before the Court is Defendant Continental Casualty Company's ("Defendant") Application to Seal Documents Marked as Confidential Offered in Support of Defendant Continental Casualty Company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Column Damage ("Application") [52]. Defendant filed its Application on April 12, 2016. Defendant seeks to file certain exhibits produced by Plaintiff Shultz Steel Company ("Plaintiff") and third party Marsh USA, Inc. Under seal. Appl. ¶¶ 5-9, ECF No. 52. Specifically, Defendant requests to file under seal Exhibits D, E, H, and I to the Declaration of J. Stephen Berry ("Berry Declaration"). Defendant states that in addition to filing the Berry Declaration and attachments under seal, Defendant will "contemporaneously file a redacted version on the ECF system, redacting only those documents marked as Confidential, or otherwise requiring redaction by law, and keeping as much information as possible public."
Local Rule 79-5.1 provides the procedural requirements for an application to file under seal and states that, unless authorized by statute or federal rule, filing any document under seal must have the Court's "prior approval" obtained by the movant's "written application and a proposed order." C.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 79-5.1.
"Historically, courts have recognized a `general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.'"
The Ninth Circuit has enumerated two different standards that a moving party must meet for an application to file judicial documents under seal to be granted. For judicial documents connected to a "dispositive motion," the movant must show "compelling reasons" for sealing the specified judicial records.
The Ninth Circuit has made clear that a party seeking to seal a judicial record relating to the merits of the case bears the burden of overcoming this presumption by articulating "compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure."
As this Application seeks to seal documents offered in support of Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [51], the Court finds that the "compelling reasons" standard applies to Defendant's Application. The Court further finds that Defendant has failed to meet the "compelling reasons" standard. Upon review of Defendant's Application and the accompanying Declaration of Keshia W. Lipscomb [53], the Court finds Defendant has failed to set forth a "`particularized showing' that `specific prejudice or harm will result' if the information is disclosed."
Accordingly,