Baker v. Seaworld Entertainment, Inc.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 LOU BAKER, individually and on behalf Case No.: 14cv2129-MMA (AGS) 12 of all others similarly situated, ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO FILE 13 UNDER SEAL Plaintiff, 14 v. [Doc. Nos. 345, 348, 350, 352, 356, 360, 368, 371, 374, 377, 382, 384, 387, 403, 15 SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT, INC., 405, 408, 412, 415, 418, 421] et al., 16 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Class Representatives Arkansas Public Employees Retirement System and 21 Pensionskassen for Børne-Og Ungdomspædagoger (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and 22 Defendants SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. (“SeaWorld”), James Atchison, James M. 23 Heaney, Marc Swanson, and the Blackstone Group L.P. (collectively, “Defendants”) 24 move to file under seal more than six hundred exhibits and various documents in 25 connection with Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the parties’ respective 26 Daubert motions. In total, there are twenty (20) motions to file under seal pending before 27 the Court. 28 On July 17, 2019, the Court ordered the parties to meet and confer on every exhibit 1 and document sought to be sealed. See Doc. No. 429 at 3. The Court further ordered the 2 parties to file a joint report that includes two charts for each pending motion to file under 3 seal. See id. at 3-4. The parties filed their joint report, including the charts, on August 4 10, 2019. See Doc. No. 431. “[T]hrough the meet-and-confer process, the parties 5 trimmed the number of disputed Exhibits from over 600 to fewer than 25 unique 6 exhibits.” Id. at 3. 7 Upon review of the joint report, the Court finds these matters suitable for 8 determination on the papers and without oral argument. 9 LEGAL STANDARD 10 Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public 11 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 12 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 13 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” 14 Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 15 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “The 16 presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent— 17 indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability 18 and for the public to have confidence in the administration of justice.” Ctr. for Auto 19 Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United 20 States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)). 21 When a party moves to file under seal a motion or documents attached to a motion, 22 the focus is on the underlying motion and whether it is “more than tangentially related to 23 the underlying cause of action.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099. If the motion is 24 more than tangentially related to the merits, like here, the movant must show compelling 25 reasons for overcoming the presumption in favor of public access. See id. at 1096-99. 26 Generally, a party seeking to seal a judicial record can overcome the presumption 27 in favor of access by “articulat[ing] compelling reasons supported by specific factual 28 findings . . . that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring 1 disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 2 447 F.3d at 1178 (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). “In turn, the 3 court must ‘conscientiously balance[ ] the competing interests’ of the public and the party 4 who seeks to keep certain judicial records secret.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 5 1135). “Compelling reasons must continue to exist to keep judicial records sealed.” In 6 re Midland Nat. Life Ins. Co. Annuity Sales Practices Litig., 686 F.3d 1115, 1119 (9th 7 Cir. 2012) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). 8 “What constitutes a ‘compelling reason’ is ‘best left to the sound discretion of the 9 trial court.’” Ctr. For Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599). 10 “Examples include when a court record might be used to ‘gratify private spite or promote 11 public scandal,’ to circulate ‘libelous’ statements, or ‘as sources of business information 12 that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’” Id. (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598- 13 99). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 14 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, 15 compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d 16 at 1136). 17 DISCUSSION 18 Here, the Court has conducted a thorough review of each document and exhibit 19 sought to be filed under seal. The Court sets forth its rulings in the far-right column of 20 the charts in Appendix A. Where the Court concludes that a document or exhibit should 21 be restricted from the public’s view, in whole or in part, the Court finds that the 22 compelling reasons standard has been met and adopts the compelling reasons articulated 23 for that document or exhibit. Where the Court concludes that only certain portions of a 24 document or exhibit should be sealed, the Court has so noted and instructed the parties to 25 file an appropriately redacted version of the document or exhibit on the docket within 26 three (3) days of the date of this Order. Moreover, where the Court concludes that a 27 document or exhibit should not be sealed, the parties must similarly file the document or 28 exhibit on the docket within three (3) days of the date of this Order. ] CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, the Court rules on the pending motions as set forth in 3 || Appendix A. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 ||Dated: September 3, 2019 flu L fil b KK □ / Lo fo 8 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28