Word v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services
2:16-cv-01836
D. Nev.Jan 4, 2017Background
- Case: Word v. Wells Fargo Dealer Services; Stipulated Protective Order approved to facilitate discovery.
- Court reiterates presumption of public access to judicial files and records; sealing requires adherence to Ninth Circuit standards from Kamakana.
- Parties must use the court's electronic filing procedures and file a contemporaneous motion for leave to file under seal per Local Rule IA 10-5.
- The court approved a blanket protective order for discovery but found no particularized showing that specific documents are confidential or that disclosure would cause identifiable, significant harm.
- The court instructs that designating a document confidential under a protective order alone does not satisfy the standard for sealing; motions must show good cause (nondispositive) or compelling reasons (dispositive).
- Procedures for resolving sealing disputes: filer must give 7 days' notice to designating party; designating party has 4 days to either withdraw designation or file a supporting declaration (3 days in emergencies), or the court may order public filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard for sealing judicial filings | Not specified beyond relying on protective order designation | Protective order designation should justify sealing discovery documents | Court: Sealing requires showing under Kamakana; designation alone insufficient |
| Procedure for filing under seal | Must be able to file documents under protective order | Must follow Local Rule IA 10-5 electronic sealing procedures and motions to seal | Court: Parties must comply with Local Rule IA 10-5 and file motions to seal contemporaneously |
| Burden when protective order used | Protective order facilitates confidentiality and should allow sealed filings | Opposing party must still show good cause/compelling reasons with declarations for sealing | Court: Blanket protective order does not override Kamakana/Foltz; specific showing required |
| Resolution timeline for disputed designations | May rely on designator to justify sealing when filed | Designating party must be notified and respond within set days or risk public filing | Court: Notice 7 days before filing; designator has 4 days (or 3 in emergency) to declare support or withdraw; failure may lead to public filing |
Key Cases Cited
- Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (establishes presumption of public access and standards for sealing nondispositive vs. dispositive materials)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (protective order designation alone insufficient to justify sealing)
- Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1992) (supports strict application of public access presumption and sealing standards)