Ancier v. Egan, 1:14-cv-00294

Plaintiff Garth Ancier sued Egan and former counsel Herman and Gallagher for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, alleging a frivolous underlying suit (Egan v. Ancier) that was voluntarily dismissed.
A Protective Order had designated certain discovery material confidential; Ancier moved to publicly file exhibits and unredacted portions of his summary-judgment filings that contained or derived from those materials.
Exhibits at issue included deposition excerpts (Ex. 4, 6), email correspondence (Exs. 19, 23–25), a letter from Egan’s new counsel (Ex. 20), and portions of Ancier’s concise statement and memorandum summarizing those materials.
Defendants objected, asserting attorney-client privilege, the Protective Order, reliance on counsel’s sealing assurances, and confidentiality agreements protecting the names of other alleged perpetrators.
The court applied the Ninth Circuit’s "compelling reasons" standard for sealing records attached to dispositive motions and reviewed privilege and waiver arguments.
Ruling: the court denied sealing on privilege or Protective Order grounds for most material, ordered redaction of full names of non‑party alleged perpetrators (initials only), and denied Ancier’s separate declassification request without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exhibits may be publicly filed despite Protective Order	Ancier: public filing is proper; materials should be declassified	Defs: materials remain confidential under Protective Order; must stay sealed	Court: Protective Order alone insufficient; allowed public filing with limited redactions
Whether attorney-client privilege shields the exhibits	Ancier: exhibits are not privileged or privilege waived	Defs: exhibits contain privileged communications and privilege not waived	Court: Defs failed to prove privilege; privilege largely inapplicable or waived
Whether prior assurances to seal deposition testimony create compelling reasons to seal	Ancier: not discussed; seeks public filing	Herman: relied on counsel’s assurance that his deposition would be sealed, so it should remain sealed	Court: assurances alone do not meet compelling‑reasons standard; not persuasive
Whether the full names of non‑party alleged perpetrators must be sealed	Ancier: full names unnecessary for adjudication; sought public filing	Defs: publicizing names would promote scandal and violate confidentiality agreements	Court: compelling reasons exist to redact full names; order redaction to initials only

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (strong presumption of public access; "compelling reasons" standard for sealing dispositive‑motion records)
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (good‑cause standard for discovery protective orders distinguished from compelling‑reasons standard)
United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600 (9th Cir. 2009) (elements and scope of attorney‑client privilege)
United States v. Graf, 610 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2010) (application of multi‑part test for attorney‑client privilege)
Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003) (privilege waived by disclosure to third parties)
Hernandez v. Tanninen, 604 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2010) (disclosure in opposing summary judgment can waive privilege)
Weil v. 647 F.2d 18 (9th Cir.) (disclosure of privileged material can waive privilege as to other related communications)