Ready Transportation, Inc. v. AAR Manufacturing, Inc.
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24431
| 9th Cir. | 2010Background
- Ready and AAR settled their dispute under a confidential agreement, leaving only a dispute over attorney's fees.
- The district court dismissed most claims with prejudice and retained jurisdiction to resolve fee entitlement.
- Ready attempted to file the confidential settlement under seal; the district court denied sealing and returned the document.
- Two days later, Ready publicly filed the confidential settlement on the docket, prompting a motion from AAR to strike.
- The district court denied the motion to strike, concluding it lacked power to strike the confidential agreement from the public docket.
- The fee dispute was resolved in Ready's favor, and both sides appealed; the appeal on the strike issue is before the Ninth Circuit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had inherent power to strike the confidential agreement | Ready contends no such inherent power was needed. | AAR contends the court possesses inherent docket-control power to strike confidential filings. | Yes; district court has inherent power to strike. |
| The proper standard of review for inherent-power decisions when power is at issue | Not applicable or argues standard favoring deference to court. | Inherent-power questions are reviewed de novo on whether the power exists, with abuse of discretion for exercise. | De novo review governs power existence; abuse-of-discretion governs exercise. |
| Whether the district court erred by not exercising its discretion on strike | District court erred by failing to strike the filing. | Court purportedly had no power to strike and thus did not exercise discretion. | Remanded for proper exercise of discretion; reversal of the denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (U.S. 1991) (inherent power to manage court affairs)
- Hernandez v. City of El Monte, 138 F.3d 393 (9th Cir. 1998) (docket-control power to manage filings)
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 1998) (inherent power to control docket; sanctions for conduct)
- Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, 546 F.3d 580 (9th Cir. 2008) (sanctions and withholding of information in filings; discussion of striking exhibits)
- Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enters., Inc., 397 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2005) (sanctions for violation of procedural rules; striking deposition materials)
- Carrigan v. California State Legislature, 263 F.2d 560 (9th Cir. 1959) (appellate court inherent power to strike briefs and pleadings)
- US v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc; abuse of discretion when legal error)
- Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. United States, 139 F.3d 1280 (9th Cir. 1998) (de novo review for legal standards; standard of review analysis)