In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or., 661 F.3d 417

Portland Archdiocese filed Chapter 11, and tort claimants pursued discovery about sexual abuse by priests, including non-parties Fathers M and D.
Bankruptcy court ordered production of 37 priest files and a protective order allowing confidentiality until court ruled otherwise.
Fathers M and D’s personnel files were produced and sealed; they were not parties to the bankruptcy and were unaware of disclosure.
Appellee Claimants later sought unsealing of punitive-damages materials and disclosure of personnel files, leading to late-stage disputes over Rule 26(c) and 11 U.S.C. § 107(b).
Bankruptcy court ruled to disclose Fathers M and D’s names under Rule 26(c) but redacted identifying information for Father D, and to reveal M’s name while keeping D’s files sealed as to identifying details; court also allowed some deposition materials to disclose.
Court of appeals reviews de novo the bankruptcy court’s Rule 26(c) and § 107(b) rulings, and acknowledges public access presumption with potential redactions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Rule 26(c) good cause standard applied to third parties	Claimants seek disclosure to inform public safety and accountability	M and D argue privacy interests require protection	Rule 26(c) burden on protection applies; redaction permissible when balancing interests
Scope of § 107(b) scandalous exception	§ 107(b) should permit disclosure only if materials are not scandalous	Disclosures of priests’ misconduct are scandalous and should be sealed	§ 107(b) covers items deemed scandalous under ordinary meaning; damages memorandum materials improperly disclosed for scandalous content and must be sealed
§ 107 preempts common-law access in bankruptcy	Common-law right supports broad access to discovery	Statutory § 107 governs bankruptcy records and overrides common-law access	Yes, § 107 preempts the common-law right of access in bankruptcy proceedings
Redaction of identifying information (M vs D)	Public interest supports disclosure of names for safety	Identifying info for Father D should be redacted to protect privacy; Father M’s info may be redacted differently	Affirm disclosure of Father M’s name; reverse as to redaction of Father D’s identifying information; require redaction of D’s identifying details

Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (abuse of discretion standard for protective orders; public-private balance under Rule 26(c))
San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999) (fruits of discovery presumptively public absent court order)
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (two-step Rule 26(c) analysis; redaction possible to protect privacy)
Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 483 (3d Cir. 1995) (two-step public/private interest balancing framework for protective orders)
In re Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation, 534 F.3d 986 (9th Cir. 2008) (statutory displacement of common-law access in specific contexts)
Gitto Global Corp., 422 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2005) (defined § 107(b) contours for potentially untrue or improper-end materials)
In re Neal, 461 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2006) (scandalous/materiality standard under § 107(b) as applied in circuits)
United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., 621 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc; considerations of privacy vs. public interest in disclosure)
In re Commodore Corp., 70 B.R. 543 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1987) (context for considerations of relevance and purpose in discovery)