Oetzel v. Constar Financial Services, LLC, 2:16-cv-02796

This is an order addressing the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order and sealing procedures in a discovery dispute between Crystal L. Oetzel (plaintiff) and Constar Financial Services, LLC (defendant).
The Court reminds counsel that there is a presumption of public access to judicial files and records and explains sealing standards under Ninth Circuit precedent.
The Court requires any document filed under seal to be accompanied by a motion to seal and to comply with Local Rule IA 10-5 and electronic filing procedures.
The Court held that the blanket stipulated protective order alone does not justify sealing; parties must show good cause for nondispositive materials and compelling reasons for dispositive materials.
The Court prescribed a notice-and-response procedure when a filing is designated confidential: notifying the designating party at least seven days before filing; the designator must state within four days whether it will justify sealing and, if so, provide a supporting declaration.
For emergency motions, shortened timing applies: the designating party has three days to file a declaration supporting sealing, or the Court may order the document public.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a blanket stipulated protective order alone permits sealing of filed documents	The protective order designation suffices to keep documents sealed during discovery and when filed	The protective order cannot by itself overcome the public-access presumption; specific justification required	The Court held the blanket order/designation alone is insufficient to seal filings; movants must meet Ninth Circuit standards
What standard governs sealing of documents attached to motions	Good cause for nondispositive-motion attachments	Same; designations presumed to show confidentiality	Good cause required for nondispositive motions; compelling reasons required for dispositive motions (per Ninth Circuit)
Procedures required before filing a designated document under seal	Minimal procedural steps; rely on protective-order designation	Must provide notice to designating party and obtain declaration justifying sealing, and file motion to seal per local rules	Court adopted a notice-and-response schedule (7-day notice; designator has 4 days to respond with declaration or release)
Effect of local electronic-filing rules on sealing practice	E-file sealed documents consistent with protective order	Must follow Local Rule IA 10-5 and Kamakana when filing under seal	Court ordered compliance with Local Rule IA 10-5 and Kamakana; any conflicting protective-order terms are superseded

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (establishes presumptive public access and standards for sealing: good cause for nondispositive materials, compelling reasons for dispositive materials)
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (protective-order designation alone does not justify sealing)
Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1992) (party must show particularized harm to justify sealing)