Securities and Exchange Commission v. Joseph R. Earle, Jr., Barry D. Reagh, William Clayton, Francis T. Dudley, Steven E. Bryant, Upper Street Marketing, Inc. and Project Growth International, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
The court considered unopposed motions by defendants to seal a motion in limine and related filings containing confidential intercepted communications. The court granted the motions to seal the documents but ordered the parties to file publicly redacted versions within seven days because the sealing requests were not narrowly tailored.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Defendants' unopposed motions to file documents under seal“Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ unopposed requests to file the documents under seal without prejudice to the Court modifying this order at a later time or using the information in a written order.” | agree with court The court applied the 'compelling reasons' standard from Ninth Circuit precedent (Kamakana) to determine that the documents contained confidential intercepted communications warranting protection. The decision is procedurally correct for an unopposed motion where the court independently reviews the documents to ensure the standard is met. |
Ordering parties to file publicly redacted versions of the documents“As such, the Court orders the parties to publicly file redacted versions of the SEC’s motion in limine and related documents (Doc. Nos. 106—106-5), and Defendants’ opposition to the SEC’s motion in limine (Doc. No. 110—110-4).” | agree with court The court correctly identified that sealing entire documents when only specific portions contain confidential information violates the requirement that sealing orders be narrowly tailored. Requiring redacted public versions is the standard procedural remedy to preserve the public's right of access while protecting specific confidential data. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the Ninth Circuit's 'compelling reasons' standard to grant the sealing motion based on the presence of confidential intercepted communications. It also correctly identifies the failure of the moving party to narrowly tailor the request and imposes the appropriate remedy of requiring redacted public filings. The reasoning is complete and supported by relevant authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No.: 3:22-cv-01914-H-SBC COMMISSION, 10 (1) GRANTING DEFENDANTS Plaintiff, 11 JOSEPH R. EARLE, JR., WILLIAM v. CLAYTON, AND BARRY D. 12 REAGH’S UNOPPOSED MOTIONS JOSEPH R. EARLE, JR., BARRY D. 13 TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER REAGH, WILLIAM CLAYTON, SEAL; 14 FRANCIS T. DUDLEY, STEVEN E.
BRYANT, UPPER STREET 15 [Doc. Nos. 107, 109.] MARKETING, INC. and PROJECT 16 GROWTH INTERNATIONAL, INC., (2) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO 17 Defendants. FILE THE PROPOSED DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL; AND 18 19 [Doc. Nos. 106–106-5, 108–108-5, 110–110-4.] 20 21 (3) ORDERING THE PARTIES TO FILE PUBLICLY REDACTED 22 VERSION OF THE DOCUMENTS 23 24 25 On June 27, 2024, Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filed a 26 motion in limine to admit recorded statements of Defendants Joseph R. Earle, Jr. (“Earle, 27 Jr.”) and Barry D. Reagh (“Reagh”). (Doc. No. 106.) On July 15, 2024, Defendants Earle, 28 Jr., William Clayton, and Reagh (collectively, “Defendants”) filed: (1) an unopposed 1 motion to seal the SEC’s motion in limine and related documents (Doc. Nos. 106–106-5); 2 and (2) an unopposed motion to seal Defendants’ opposition to the SEC’s motion in limine 3 (Doc. No. 110–110-4). (Doc. Nos. 107, 109.) Defendants argue that the documents at 4 issue should be sealed because they contain confidential intercepted communications and 5 failure to seal these documents would violate Defendants’ rights to privacy. (See Doc. 6 No. 107 at 5; Doc. No. 109 at 3.) 7 After reviewing the documents at issue, the Court concludes that compelling reasons 8 exist to seal the documents. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 9 1178 (9th Cir. 2006); Mezzadri v. Med. Depot, Inc., No. 14-CV-2330-AJB-DHB, 2015 10 WL 12564223, at *2–3 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2015); Baker v. SeaWorld Ent., Inc., No. 14- 11 CV-02129-MMA (AGS), 2017 WL 5029612, at *5–6 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2017). 12 Accordingly, the Court grants Defendants’ unopposed requests to file the documents under 13 seal without prejudice to the Court modifying this order at a later time or using the 14 information in a written order. The Court directs the Clerk to file the proposed documents 15 under seal. (Doc. Nos. 106–106-5, 108–108-5, 110–110-4.) 16 Although the Court grants Defendants’ motions to file the documents at issue under 17 seal, the Court notes that many of Defendants’ sealing requests are not narrowly tailored 18 to only seal the confidential information at issue. For example, the first page of the SEC’s 19 motion in limine is a cover page that contains no sealable information. (See Doc. No. 106 20 at 1.) “Requests to seal must be narrowly tailored.” Whitewater W. Indus., Ltd. v. Pac. 21 Surf Designs, Inc., No. 3:17-CV-01118-BEN-BLM, 2018 WL 3055938, at *3 (S.D. Cal. 22 June 14, 2018); see Doe v. L. Offs. of Winn & Sims, No. 06-CV-00599-H-AJB, 2021 WL 23 2662311, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 29, 2021) (“‘[A]ny order sealing documents should be 24 “narrowly tailored”’ to serve those compelling reasons.” (quoting Ervine v. Warden, 214 25 F. Supp. 3d 917, 919 (E.D. Cal. 2016))). Unless the moving party can demonstrate that the 26 entire document at issue contains sealable information, in order for a sealing request to be 27 narrowly tailored, the moving party must publicly file a redacted version of the document 28 along with the sealed version of the document. 1 As such, the Court orders the parties to publicly file redacted versions of the SEC’s 2 ||motion in limine and related documents (Doc. Nos. 106—-106-5), and Defendants’ 3 || opposition to the SEC’s motion in limine (Doc. No. 110—110-4). To the extent necessary, 4 ||the Court orders the parties to meet and confer regarding the necessary redactions. The 5 || publicly filed redacted versions of the documents must be filed within seven (7) days from 6 || the date this order is filed. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || DATED: July 19, 2024 | | | ul | | | 9 MARILYN ©. HUFF, Distri ge 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28