McMillan v. Chaker
3:16-cv-02186
S.D. Cal.Oct 2, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Scott A. McMillan and The McMillan Law Firm sued Darren D. Chaker alleging RICO and civil extortion; an amended complaint was later filed and partly dismissed.
- Defendant moved to seal three exhibits filed on the public docket: Exhibit FF to the Original Complaint, Exhibit FF to the First Amended Complaint, and Exhibit C attached to McMillan’s declaration opposing sanctions.
- Defendant asserted the exhibits contained personal, sensitive identifying information (dates of birth, Social Security number fragments, driver’s license numbers, addresses, medical info) and thus violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 and risked identity theft.
- Plaintiffs opposed sealing, arguing the information was either redacted, not present (no full SSNs), or not material; they proposed limited redaction and public filing of redacted versions and argued Chaker lacked standing to seek sealing for third‑party information.
- The court reviewed the exhibits, found they contained personal/confidential data that could be used improperly, and concluded Defendant met the "compelling reasons" standard to overcome the presumption of public access.
- The court granted the motion to seal the specified exhibits (including several exhibits attached to Plaintiffs’ opposition containing similar information) and denied other relief requested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Exhibits FF and C should be sealed | Redactions already made or unnecessary; some data not present; propose filing redacted public versions | Exhibits contain sensitive PII (DOB, SSN fragments, DL numbers, addresses) that risks identity theft and violate Rule 5.2 | Sealing granted — court found compelling reasons to seal due to risk of improper use |
| Whether filing violated Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 | Plaintiff: no full SSNs; month/day DOB could be redacted; DL numbers not protected | Defendant: Plaintiff failed to redact required elements (month/day of birth, first 5 SSN digits) | Court applied Rule 5.2 standards and found sealing appropriate to protect the PII at issue |
| Whether related exhibits attached to Plaintiff's opposition should be sealed | Plaintiff did not directly address all such exhibits; argued some info concerned third parties and was redacted | Defendant asked those exhibits stricken or sealed as they contained largely same information | Court sealed those exhibits as well (1,2,4,5,6,7,8) due to substantially similar PII |
| Whether additional remedies (sanctions; restraint on dissemination) were warranted | Plaintiff opposed sanctions and proposed redaction approach | Defendant sought sanctions for refiling and an order restraining dissemination by counsel | Court denied other relief except sealing; did not impose sanctions or broader restraints beyond sealing |
Key Cases Cited
- Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (compelling‑reasons standard to overcome public‑access presumption)
- Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) (public has a general right to inspect judicial records)
- Oregonian Publ'g Co. v. United States Dist. Ct., 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990) (closure justified only to preserve higher values and must be narrowly tailored)
- Press‑Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (tests for public access to judicial proceedings)
- Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665 (9th Cir. 2010) (district court must weigh factors and articulate factual basis under compelling‑reasons standard)
- Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430 (9th Cir. 1995) (examples of improper uses of court records that can justify sealing)