Opinion
Case No. 18-CR-5382-GPC
05-08-2020
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. WARREN VAN DAM (5), et al., Defendant.
( )
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL.
(ECF NO. 112.)
On May 1, 2020, Defendant Warren Van Dam filed a motion seeking to file a document under seal. (ECF No. 112.) Specifically, Defendant seeks to file "60 pages of documents produced in discovery in this case" as Exhibit E to his Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, also filed on May 1, 2020 as ECF No. 110. (See ECF No. 112-1 at ¶¶ 3, 4.) Defendant offers as a basis for filing the documents under seal that the Government has not stipulated to lifting a prior protective order so that Defendant could publicly file these documents. (Id. at ¶ 5; see also ECF Nos. 16, 59.)
Courts have historically recognized a "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted). This presumption is rebutted where the documents are attached to a nondispositive motion, and the movant makes a particularized showing under the good cause standard for each document. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir. 2003).
However, "'once the [sealed discovery] documents are made part of a dispositive motion . . . they lose their status of being raw fruits of discovery,' and no longer enjoy protected status 'without some overriding interests in favor of keeping the discovery documents under seal.'" Id. at 1136 (quoting Rushford v. The New Yorker Magazine, 846 F.2d 249, 252 (4th Cir. 1988)) (emphasis added). Thus, if filed with a dispositive motion, the document will be sealed only for a "compelling reason." Id.
"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." In re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1120 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)); see also United States v. Kott, 135 F. App'x 69, 71 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming a court's decision to unseal "search warrant materials and the indictment" under the common law right of access for lack of compelling reasons).
Here, the Parties do not make a particularized showing as to why there is a compelling reason to seal all 60 pages of the proposed document. At most, Defendant points to a prior protective order, to which the Parties have stipulated, and which governs the production and use of these documents. (ECF Nos. 16, 59.) However, "[n]either the parties' agreement that documents shall be filed under seal, nor a party designating documents as confidential, is sufficient to meet the good cause standard," much less the compelling reasons standard. Anderson v. Marsh, 312 F.R.D. 584, 594 (E.D. Cal. 2015); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 (finding that a non-party's "claimed reliance on the [protective] order is not a 'compelling reason' that rebuts the presumption of access.").
Consequently, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to file the documents without prejudice and rejects the document at this time. The Court GRANTS the Parties leave to re-file the motion and better articulate why there are compelling reasons to seal the specific 60-pages now before the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 8, 2020
/s/_________
Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
United States District Judge