Securities and Exchange Commission v. Champion-Cain
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Ussec v. Chicago Title Company (2025-02-20) — affirmed; Ussec v. Chicago Title Company (2025-04-28) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
The Receiver moved for permission to file certain documents supporting Allen Matkins' second interim fee application under seal. The Court granted the motion, finding that the 'good cause' standard for sealing non-dispositive materials was met.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for permission to file portion of second interim fee application under seal granted“The motion is GRANTED. The proffered documents are accepted for filing under seal.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the motion was non-dispositive and applied the 'good cause' standard from Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n. The court found that the documents contained litigation strategy and privileged communications, which are generally protected from public disclosure to prevent harm to the estate. The court also noted that the stricter 'compelling reasons' standard would be met, providing a robust basis for the decision. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent for the standard of review. It correctly distinguishes between dispositive and non-dispositive motions and applies the lower 'good cause' standard. The factual basis for sealing (litigation strategy and privilege) is sufficient to satisfy the standard.
Opinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUfRT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No. 3:19-cv-01628-LAB-AHG COMMISSION, 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR 13 PERMISSION TO FILE PORTION v. OF SECOND INTERIM FEE 14 APPLICATION OF ALLEN GINA CHAMPION-CAIN and ANI MATKINS LECK GAMBLE 15 DEVELOPMENT, LLC, MALLORY & NATSIS LLP, GENERAL COUNSEL UNDER SEAL 16 Defendants, 17 AMERICAN NATIONAL INVESTMENTS, INC., 18 Relief Defendant. 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On August 7, 2020, Krista L. Freitag, the Court-appointed permanent 2 | Receiver filed a Motion for permission to file documents in support of Allen 3 | Matkins’ second interim fee application. No opposition was filed. 4 Although the motion was unopposed, the Court must consider the public’s 5 | right to access of judicial records. The documents to be sealed are offered in support 6 | of Allen Matkins’ fee application. Most of the application and supporting 7 | information was filed publicly, but the motion asks that certain documents 8 | pertaining to legal work performed by Allen Matkins in its role as counsel for the 9 | Receiver. The motion argues that sealing is appropriate under the “compelling 10 | reasons” standard. See Kamakana vy. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 11 | (9th Cir. 2006). But because the motion appears to be nondispositive, the Court 12 | believes the lower “good cause” standard is appropriate. See Pintos v. Pac. 13 | Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). See also Allen y. City of 14 | Oakland, 2012 WL 5949619, at *1 (N.D. Cal., Nov. 28, 2012) (treating motion for 15 | appointment of receiver as nondispositive). The materials to be sealed concern 16 | matters of litigation strategy, and include communications recognized as entitled to 17 | confidentiality protection. Public disclosure of the information could easily harm the 18 | interests of the receivership estate. The Court finds good cause for sealing. And 19 | even under the “compelling reasons” test, the Court finds the standard would be met 20 | as well. 21 The motion is GRANTED. The proffered documents are accepted for filing 22 | under seal. 23 24 | Dated: December 10, 2020 ( Lette Af “4 Zu) 25 Chior United States District Judge 26 27 28