Richard Farley v. Ronald Davis, 4:16-cv-04443

Richard W. Farley was convicted in 1991 in Santa Clara County of multiple counts including seven first-degree murders and sentenced to death; the conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
The California Supreme Court denied Farley’s state habeas petition in January 2016; the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2010.
Farley sought appointment of federal habeas counsel and a stay of execution in August 2016; counsel were appointed and he was granted equitable tolling to file an amended federal habeas petition.
Farley filed an amended petition on August 3, 2017, attaching Exhibit 4 (graphic victim photographs) and Exhibit 5 (a trial transcript previously sealed in state court), and moved to file those exhibits under seal; respondent Ron Davis did not oppose the motion.
The district court evaluated the sealing motion under the Ninth Circuit standards for judicial records attached to dispositive motions and concluded Farley failed to show the required compelling reasons or specific factual findings to justify sealing.
The court denied the motion to seal Exhibits 4 and 5 and ordered respondent to produce the documents Farley said were missing from the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Exhibits 4 and 5 to the amended habeas petition may be filed under seal	Farley: only "good cause" required; Exhibit 4 should be sealed to protect victim privacy; Exhibit 5 should be sealed because it was sealed in trial court	Davis: filed no opposition to sealing; court also faced a request to produce missing records	Denied. Because the exhibits support dispositive habeas claims, "compelling reasons" standard applies; Farley failed to provide specific factual findings showing compelling reasons to overcome the presumption of access

Nixon v. Warner Commc's Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (establishes public right of access to judicial records)
Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (distinguishes sealing standards for records attached to dispositive vs. non-dispositive motions; requires compelling reasons for dispositive materials)
Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (requires district courts to base sealing decisions on specific factual findings)