Father M v. Various Tort (In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop), 661 F.3d 417

Archdiocese of Portland filed Chapter 11, becoming the forum for many tort claims alleging clergy abuse.
Discovery produced in bankruptcy included personnel files of two priests not parties to the case, Fathers M and D.
The files were designated confidential under a stipulated protective order, and initially filed under seal.
Memoranda and attachments to settlement-related filings referenced the confidential files, with some materials later released publicly by agreement among some tort claimants.
Fathers M and D argued for protection of their personnel files and for redaction, while Appellee Claimants sought unsealing for public access and oversight of abuse allegations.
Bankruptcy court ordered disclosure of personnel files (with redactions to addresses, SSNs, etc.) unless redacted where necessary, and unsealed deposition transcripts and exhibits; it also held the punitive-damages memorandum not to be scandalous under §107(b).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 26(c) protects third-party personnel files when discovered materials are linked to bankruptcy proceedings.	Fathers M and D contend good cause exists to protect third-party privacy.	Appellee Claimants argue public access outweighs privacy interests; redaction can address privacy.	Bankruptcy court did not abuse discretion; redactions may be limited but disclosure allowed for safety/privacy balance.
Whether § 107(b) scandalousness standard requires untruth or relevance or improper end.	Fathers M and D claim materials are scandalous because they portray abuse and are discrediting.	Appellee Claimants argue materials not scandalous or are used for proper purposes.	Court held § 107(b) requires only that material be scandalous under ordinary meaning; materials about abuse are scandalous.
Whether common-law right of access is preempted by § 107 in bankruptcy proceedings.	Goes beyond common law; argues § 107 keeps public access.	§ 107 preempts common law in bankruptcy context.	§ 107 preempts common-law access rights in bankruptcy proceedings.
Whether the punitive-damages memorandum and attached materials involving Fathers M and D must be released.	Memorandum and attachments should be public for transparency and accountability.	Because material is scandalous, § 107(b) requires non-disclosure.	Held that the punitive-damages memorandum and attachments were scandalous and should be sealed; reversal of release as to those materials.

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (strong presumption of public access with exceptions for compelling reasons)
Gitto Global Corp., 422 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (defined contours of the §107(b) exception for scandalous/defamatory material)
In re Neal, 461 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2006) (applied 107(b) to include 'scandalous' material and improper ends)
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (two-step Rule 26(c) analysis; redaction possibilities)
Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for protective orders; balancing test)
Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 483 (3d Cir. 1995) (two-step public-private interests balancing for protective orders)