Aron Oliner v. John Kontrabecki
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 5282
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Parties to a settled bankruptcy case agreed to seek leave to file under seal all bankruptcy-related documents and all district court and appellate proceedings; the bankruptcy record was sealed.
- The parties jointly requested that the district court seal the entire district-court record of an interlocutory appeal from the bankruptcy court dismissal (Oliner v. Kontrabecki).
- The district court denied the joint sealing request, treating the district-court record as the entire judicial record and applying the heightened "compelling reasons" standard for sealing.
- Kontrabecki (appealing unopposed) argued the interlocutory appeal should be treated as a nondispositive matter subject to the lower "good cause" standard because it did not resolve claims on the merits.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed, holding the parties failed to show compelling reasons to seal the entire record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for sealing the district-court record | The interlocutory appeal is nondispositive so "good cause" governs | Sealing the entire court record is dispositive and implicates public access, so "compelling reasons" applies | "Compelling reasons" standard applies to sealing the entire judicial record |
| Sufficiency of reasons to seal | Settlement expectations and desire to avoid embarrassment and professional harm justify sealing | Public access presumption outweighs embarrassment; proceedings already public since 2004 | Embarrassment and potential professional burden are not compelling reasons to seal |
| Timing / waiver of sealing issue | (Raised on appeal) Integrity of judicial proceedings and settlement reliance justify sealing | Settlement terms do not support claim that parties believed district record would be sealed | Court rejects belated argument; settlement terms do not show such reliance |
| Scope of relief requested | Seal the entire district-court record, including opinion and motions | Public scrutiny of judicial decisions should not be foreclosed; sealing must be narrowly tailored | Denial of request to seal entire record affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (recognizes public right to inspect judicial records)
- Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (strong presumption of access; "compelling reasons" required to seal judicial records)
- Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665 (distinguishes "good cause" for nondispositive materials from "compelling reasons")
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (appealability of orders denying sealing)
- Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880 (total closure of judicial records requires most compelling reasons)
- Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165 (public nature of judicial proceedings and records)
- Miller v. Indiana Hosp., 16 F.3d 549 (heavy burden to seal judicial records, especially entire records)
- Perez-Guerrero v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 717 F.3d 1224 (sealing entire civil records requires compelling governmental interest)
- Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 305 B.R. 510 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (district-court dismissal of interlocutory appeal)
- Oliner v. Kontrabecki, [citation="158 F. App'x 1"] (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming dismissal)