Hale v. Ensign United States Drilling (California) Inc.
1:15-cv-01042
E.D. Cal.Jun 2, 2017Background
- Plaintiff O’Brian Rangel opposed defendants’ summary judgment motion and sought leave to file his opposition papers and supporting declarations/exhibits under seal.
- Documents to be sealed included the opposition memorandum, a declaration with exhibits, an updated joint statement of undisputed facts, and a statement of disputed facts.
- The documents referenced material produced and designated confidential by defendants under the parties’ stipulated protective order.
- The motion for summary judgment was a dispositive filing, so the Ninth Circuit’s "compelling reasons" standard for sealing applies.
- The court found plaintiff’s sealing request insufficient because it only relied on the defendants’ confidentiality designations and did not identify specific, articulable compelling reasons for sealing.
- The court denied the request without prejudice, advised narrowly tailored sealing or redaction under Local Rules 140–141, and stated only the proponent of sealing (usually the producing party) should seek sealing orders going forward.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff demonstrated "compelling reasons" to seal documents attached to a dispositive motion | Documents reference material designated confidential by defendants under the protective order, so they should be filed under seal | Confidentiality designations support sealing; defendants (as producing party) are better situated to justify sealing | Denied: plaintiff failed to show specific compelling reasons; wholesale sealing is not justified without particularized facts |
| Who may properly seek sealing/redaction and how filings should be handled | Plaintiff sought leave to file under seal (but took no position on which portions should be sealed) | Producing party (defendants) should move to seal and can better articulate confidentiality interests | Court will consider sealing/redaction requests only from the proponent of sealing or redaction; parties should use narrow redactions and follow Local Rules 140–141 |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (discusses presumption of public access to court records)
- Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (establishes "compelling reasons" standard for sealing records attached to dispositive motions)
- In re Midland Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 686 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2012) (distinguishes access standards for dispositive vs. non-dispositive filings)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (good cause standard applies to non-dispositive motions)
- Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) (vacated sealing decision where district court applied wrong standard for dispositive filings)
- Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978) (identifies categories of interests that can justify sealing, e.g., trade secrets, libelous material)