Sihler v. The Fulfillment Lab, Inc
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
Plaintiffs moved to seal their proposed second amended complaint and redline, and for leave to file the second amended complaint, while the parties simultaneously filed a joint motion to stay proceedings. The court denied the motion to seal as the protective order was overinclusive and denied the motion for leave to file as premature due to the pending stay.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Seal Documents Denied“Based on the strong presumption in favor of access to court records, the Court declines to seal Plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint and Plaintiffs’ redline of changes in the second amended complaint.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Ninth Circuit's 'compelling reasons' standard for sealing judicial records. The court found that the plaintiffs' reliance on a protective order was insufficient because the order was 'overinclusive' and did not provide an absolute privilege against disclosure. The court offered a path forward by allowing plaintiffs to submit narrower redactions for 'good cause' review, which is consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and Ninth Circuit precedent. |
Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Denied as Premature“In light of the parties’ joint motion to stay the proceedings, (Doc. No. 96), the Court also denies Plaintiffs’ pending motion for leave to file a second amended complaint premature. (Doc. No. 89.)” | agree with court The court denied the motion as 'premature' rather than on the merits. This is a standard procedural mechanism to avoid ruling on a motion while a stay is pending, which would render the ruling moot or require re-litigation. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing, which is consistent with the denial as premature. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the high bar for sealing court records under Ninth Circuit law and applies it to the specific facts (reliance on an overinclusive protective order). It also appropriately manages the docket by denying the amendment motion as premature in light of the pending stay, avoiding a merits ruling that would be mooted by the stay.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JANET SIHLER, individually and on Case No.: 3:20-cv-01528-H-MSB behalf of all others similarly situated; 9 CHARLENE BAVENCOFF, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ 10 individually and on behalf of all MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS others similarly situated, AND MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 11 FILE A SECOND AMENDED Plaintiffs, 12 COMPLAINT v. 13 [Doc. Nos. 89, 90.] THE FULFILLMENT LAB, INC; 14 RICHARD NELSON; BEYOND 15 GLOBAL INC.; and DOES 1-10, 16 Defendants. 17 On September 24, 2021, Plaintiffs Janet Sihler and Charlene Bavencoff filed a 18 motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 89.) On September 24, 19 2021, Plaintiffs also filed a motion to seal Plaintiffs’ proposed second amended 20 complaint and a redline of changes in the second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 90.) On 21 October 20, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the proceedings. (Doc. No. 96.) 22 “[C]ourts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 23 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Ctr. for Auto Safety 24 v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Nixon v. Warner 25 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). “Unless a particular court record is one 26 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 27 Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting 28 Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). “A party 1 || seeking to seal a judicial record...bears the burden of overcoming this strong 2 || presumption by meeting the compelling reasons standard. That is, the party must 3 || articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that outweigh the 4 || general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public 5 || interest in understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 6 || (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 7 || F.3d at 1096-97. 8 Based on the strong presumption in favor of access to court records, the Court 9 || declines to seal Plaintiffs’ proposed second amended complaint and Plaintiffs’ redline of 10 ||changes in the second amended complaint. (Doc. No. 89.) As Plaintiffs point out, the 11 || proposed redacted information in the documents has been designated as confidential 12 || pursuant to the amended protective order in this action. (Doc. No. 52.) Plaintiffs seek to 13 || file the documents under seal in order to comply with the amended protective order. 14 ||(Doc. No. 90 at 2.) The Court has reviewed the redacted information and has determined 15 || that the amended protective order is overinclusive. See In re Violation of Rule 28(D), 635 16 1352, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“It is well settled that Rule 26(c)(1) does not furnish an 17 || absolute privilege against disclosure of material that a party might wish to mark 18 confidential.”). Plaintiffs may submit for the Court’s consideration redacted versions of 19 || the documents with a narrower scope, and the Court will consider whether good cause 20 exists to seal certain portions of the documents. 21 In light of the parties’ joint motion to stay the proceedings, (Doc. No. 96), the 22 Court also denies Plaintiffs’ pending motion for leave to file a second amended complaint 23 premature. (Doc. No. 89.) The Court vacates the hearing on the motion for leave to file 24 ||a second amended complaint that is currently schedule for November 8, 2021. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || DATED: November 1, 2021 | | | | l | | | □ 27 MARILYN LYHUFF, District 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT