From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Caputo v. BP West Coast Prods., LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 1, 2012
Civ. No. S-11-722 KJM GGH (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2012)

Opinion

Civ. No. S-11-722 KJM GGH

03-01-2012

JOHN R. CAPUTO, Plaintiff, v. BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendants.


ORDER

Plaintiff, a franchisee of defendant, has filed suit under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 2804, et seq., alleging violations of the act stemming from defendant's intent to sell the gas station currently operated by plaintiff to third parties.

Defendant has filed a request to seal certain documents it wishes to use in support of a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has agreed that third party financial information should be sealed, but argues that the additional materials are not appropriate for sealing.

Historically, courts have recognized a "general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978). Unless a particular court record is one "traditionally kept secret," a "strong presumption in favor of access" is the starting point. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.1995); accord In re Video-Indiana, Inc., 672 F.2d 1289 (7th Cir. 1982); United States v. Criden, 648 F.2d 814, 823 (3d Cir. 1981); In re National Broadcasting Co., Inc., 653 F.2d 609, 613 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (courts should deny access only if "justice so requires").

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that materials attached to dispositive motions should not be sealed without a showing that compelling reasons support the secrecy. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). Generally, compelling reasons exist when court records might be used "as sources of business information that might harm a litigant's competitive standing." Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. The court finds that the materials attached as Exhibits A through C to the Declaration of Jeffrey M. Hamerling in Support of Defendant's Application meet the Nixon standard as potentially harmful sources of business information that, if published, might put defendant at a competitive disadvantage. See also Transbay Auto Serv. Inc., v. Chevron U.S.A., 2010 WL 4591596, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2010). The other materials, Exhibits D through H, contain third party financial information the court also finds appropriate to seal, as "[p]ersonal financial information . . . is universally presumed to be private, not public." In re Boston Herald, Inc., 321 F.3d 174, 190 (1st Cir. 2003).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion to seal (ECF No. 31) is granted.

____________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Caputo v. BP West Coast Prods., LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 1, 2012
Civ. No. S-11-722 KJM GGH (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2012)
Case details for

Caputo v. BP West Coast Prods., LLC

Case Details

Full title:JOHN R. CAPUTO, Plaintiff, v. BP WEST COAST PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 1, 2012

Citations

Civ. No. S-11-722 KJM GGH (E.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2012)