Cadles of West Virginia, LLC v. Alvarez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CADLES OF WEST VIRGINIA, LLC, Case No.: 20-CV-2534 TWR (WVG)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL 14 MARIO ALVAREZ, et al., IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR 15 Defendants. PREJUDGEMENT WRIT OF ATTACHMENT 16 17 (ECF No. 85) 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Cadles of West Virginia, LLC’s Motion to File 19 Certain Exhibits Under Seal (ECF No. 85, “Mot.”) in support of its Motion for Prejudgment 20 Writ of Attachment (ECF No. 86). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES 21 Plaintiff’s Motion. 22 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 23 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 24 Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 25 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 26 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 27 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). A party seeking 28 / / / 1 to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption of access. 2 Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. 3 The showing required to seal a judicial record depends upon whether the documents 4 to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the 5 case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). 6 Where the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, the 7 stringent “compelling reasons” standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. Where the underlying 8 motion does not surpass the tangential relevance threshold, the less exacting “good cause” 9 standard applies. Id. The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound 10 discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of 11 the particular case.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 599. 12 Plaintiff seeks leave to file the following exhibits under seal in support of its Motion 13 for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment: (1) Portions of Beth Chrisman’s Expert Report (pages 14 42–1314) (ECF Nos. 87-1–87-7); (2) Loan Application for Laguna Beach Property in the 15 Name of Mario Alvarez (pages 1632–1638) (ECF No. 87-8); and (3) Loan Application for 16 Kailua Kona Property in the Name of Mario Alvarez (pages 1639–1644) (ECF No. 87-9). 17 (See ECF No. 86 at 2–3.)1 Because a prejudgment writ of attachment requires a court to 18 determine “the probable validity of the claim upon which the attachment is based,” see Cal. 19 Civ. Proc. Code § 484.090(2), any sealed documents supporting such a motion are 20 necessarily more than tangentially related to the merits of the case, see Cummings v. 21 Worktap, Inc., No. 17-CV-06246-SBA (SK), 2018 WL 3067782, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 22 2018). Accordingly, the higher “compelling reasons” standard applies. 23 / / / 24 25 1 Plaintiff refers to these documents as Exhibits 3, 17, and 18, respectively. (See Mot. at 1–2; see also 26 ECF No, 86 at 22–24.) Yet, when submitting its Motion for Prejudgment Writ of Attachment, Plaintiff failed to file slip sheets indicating that pages 42 through 1314 of Exhibit 3 and Exhibits 17 and 18 in their 27 entirety would be lodged under seal. (See generally ECF Nos. 86-1–86-18.) The Court cautions Plaintiff that, going forward, publicly filed exhibits should account for all pages that constitute the record, including 28 1 “Examples [of compelling reasons] include when a court record might be used to 2 ‘gratify private spite or promote public scandal,’ to circulate ‘libelous’ statements, or ‘as 3 sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.’” Ctr. 4 for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598–99). “The mere fact 5 that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or 6 exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” 7 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). In this District, certain 8 information traditionally kept secret—such as social security numbers, birth dates, and 9 financial account numbers—must be filed under seal or partially redacted from public 10 filings. See Office of the Clerk, United States District Court for the Southern District of 11 California, Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, § 1.h 12 (Jan. 30, 2023), available at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/cmecf/Electronic% 13 20Case%20Filing%20Procedures%20Manual.pdf; In re Adopting a Policy on Privacy and 14 Public Access to Electronic Case Files, General Order No. 514-E (S.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 15 2020), available at https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/_assets/pdf/rules/General%20Order% 16 20514-E%20Adopting%20a%20Policy%20on%20Privacy%20and%20Public%20Access 17 %20to%20Electronic%20Case%20Files.pdf.. 18 Here, Plaintiff has redacted such information not only from all public filings, (see 19 generally ECF Nos. 86-1–86-18), but also from the exhibits lodged under seal, (see 20 generally ECF No. 87-1–87-9). Thus, Plaintiff has identified no sensitive information 21 remaining in the lodged documents that provides a compelling reason to file them under 22 seal. Rather, Plaintiff’s only justification for filing these documents under seal is the 23 Protective Order, (see Mot. at 4), which requires any party seeking to file material 24 designated as “confidential” to first “seek permission of the Court to file the material under 25 seal.” (See ECF No. 46 ¶ 11.) Here, the exhibits Plaintiff seeks to file under seal were 26 designated as confidential under the Protective Order. (See Mot. at 3–4.) Yet, “[t]he 27 existence of a stipulated protected order is not enough, standing alone, to justify sealing 28 under the [more permissive] ‘good cause’ standard.” Signal Hill Serv., Inc. v. Macquarie 1 || Bank Ltd., No. CV1101539MMMJEMX, 2013 WL 12244287, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 14, 2 2013) (citing Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992); In 3 ||re Ferrero Litig., No. 11-CV-205 H(CAB), 2011 WL 3360443, *2 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 4 ||2011)). Plaintiffhas therefore failed to identify any “compelling reasons” to file the lodged 5 documents under seal. 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE □□□□□□□□□□ 7 || Motion (ECF No. 85). Either Party MAY FILE a renewed motion to file under seal any 8 documents for which “compelling reasons” exist within fourteen (14) days of the electronic 9 ||docketing of this Order. Should neither Party elect to file a renewed motion, Plaintiff 10 SHALL PUBLICLY FILE ECF No. 87 within twenty-one (21) days of the electronic 11 || docketing of this Order. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: February 27, 2023 —_—— 4 | od (2 ® □□□ 15 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 6 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28