Opinion
NO. CIV. S-08-567 LKK/DAD.
August 27, 2010
ORDER
On July 11, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for class certification. Along with this motion plaintiff filed an ex parte application to file exhibits to plaintiff's declaration under seal. ECF No. 50. There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to documents filed in connection with dispositive motions, and this presumption weighs against sealing such documents. Kamakana v. City County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Courts may treat motions for class certification as dispositive "where a denial of class status mean that the stakes are too low for the named plaintiffs to continue the matter, or where the grant of class status raises the cost and stakes of the litigation so substantially that a rational defendant would feel irresistible pressure to settle." Prado-Steiman v. Bush, F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2000); see also Chamberlan v. Ford Motor Co., 402 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2005) (adopting Prado-Steiman's approach). In the context of a dispositive motion, "the district court must base its decision [to seal materials] on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).
The court tentatively GRANTS plaintiffs' application. Plaintiffs are instructed to file Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 to the Declaration of Jose Ontiveros under seal within seven (7) days of the issuance of this order. Plaintiffs are cautioned, however, that this sealing is tentative. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186. The court will revisit whether these documents should be permanently sealed at a later time, when it is possible to perform the fact specific analysis required by Foltz.
The court notes that it recently stayed proceedings in this case. The stay remains in effect.