Brinkley v. Monterey Financial Services, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered Defendant's motion to seal portions of its brief that quoted an expert report, after Plaintiff withdrew its request to seal that expert report. The court denied the motion to seal and ordered both parties to file unredacted versions of the documents within five days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's Motion to Seal (ECF No. 196) is denied.“WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to seal, ECF No. 196.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard for sealing documents in connection with nondispositive motions. Because the underlying document (the Hansen Report) was no longer under seal and was to be filed publicly, the justification for sealing the brief that quoted it evaporated. The decision follows logically from the procedural posture and the cited authority. |
Plaintiff is directed to file an unredacted version of Exhibit 16 (Hansen Report).“Plaintiff shall file an unredacted version of Exhibit 16, ECF No. 187-19, and Defendant shall file an unredacted version of its brief in support of its motion to preclude portions of the Hansen Report, ECF No. 195-1, within five (5) days of the date of this Order.” | agree with court This is a procedural directive consistent with the denial of the seal and the withdrawal of Plaintiff's motion to seal. It ensures the public record is complete. |
Defendant is directed to file an unredacted version of its brief in support of its motion to preclude portions of the Hansen Report.“Plaintiff shall file an unredacted version of Exhibit 16, ECF No. 187-19, and Defendant shall file an unredacted version of its brief in support of its motion to preclude portions of the Hansen Report, ECF No. 195-1, within five (5) days of the date of this Order.” | agree with court This is a procedural directive consistent with the denial of the seal. It ensures the public record is complete. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the motion. It correctly identifies the standard of review (good cause for nondispositive motions) and applies it to the specific facts (the underlying document is no longer sealed). The reasoning is sufficient to support the result.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 TIFFANY BRINKLEY, Case No.: 16-CV-1103-RSH-WVG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 14 v. MOTION TO SEAL AND DIRECTING RE-FILING NOT 15 MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, UNDER SEAL LLC, 16 Defendant. [ECF No. 196] 17 18 19 20 On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Motion To Seal Documents In Support Of 21 Plaintiff’s Motion For Class Certification. ECF No. 188. The motion sought to seal in 22 their entirety Exhibits 1, 3, and 16 to the Declaration of Patrick N. Keegan in support of 23 Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. Plaintiff moved to seal Exhibit 16, which 24 contained Jeffrey A. Hansen’s expert report (“Hansen Report”) because she had 25 designated the report as “Highly Confidential,” and the report described documents 26 designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” by Defendant. See ECF No. 188 at 27 2-3. On July 12, 2022, the Court granted the motion to seal Exhibits 1 and 3 but denied 28 the motion to seal Exhibit 16. ECF No. 203. The Court gave leave for Plaintiff to file 1 || another motion to seal and file a redacted version of the Hansen Report within fourteen 2 || days of its Order. /d. at 2. 3 On July 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice informing the Court that Defendant has 4 objection to the report being filed without redactions,” and Plaintiff no longer seeks 5 || to seal the Hansen Report. ECF No. 205 at 2. Plaintiff further requested that the Court 6 || publicly file Exhibit 16. /d. In light of these circumstances, the Court finds no 7 justification to shield the Hansen Report from public disclosure. 8 On May 11, 2022, Defendant filed a separate motion to seal its brief in support of 9 motion to preclude portions of the Hansen Report. ECF No. 196. That motion seeks to 10 only those sections of Defendant’s brief that quote the Hansen Report for the sole 11 |/reason that Plaintiff had designated the Hansen Report as confidential and moved to file it 12 || under seal. /d. at 2-3. Because Plaintiff no longer seeks to seal Exhibit 16, which will be 13 || filed on the public docket, and Defendant has “no objection to the [Hansen R Jeport being 14 || filed without redactions,” ECF No. 205 at 2, the Court finds no good cause to seal 15 || Defendant’s brief. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010) 16 (requiring a party to demonstrate “good cause” when it seeks to file documents under seal 17 ||in connection with a nondispositive motion). 18 WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to seal, ECF No. 196. 19 || Plaintiff shall file an unredacted version of Exhibit 16, ECF No. 187-19, and Defendant 20 || shall file an unredacted version of its brief in support of its motion to preclude portions of 21 ||the Hansen Report, ECF No. 195-1, within five (5) days of the date of this Order. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. /obut © Une 23 ||Dated: July 19, 2022 A Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 25 26 27 28