Windy Cove, Inc. v. Circle K Stores, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Windy Cove, Inc. v. Circle K Stores Inc. (2024-12-03) — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Michael M. Anello (author)
Analysis
The court considered Defendant's unopposed motion for leave to file its motion for attorneys' fees and supporting exhibits under seal. The court granted the motion, finding good cause to seal the documents.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendant's motion for leave to file documents under seal is granted.“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Doc. No. 192 UNDER SEAL.” | agree with court The court correctly identified the applicable legal standard, noting that while there is a strong presumption of public access, a lower 'good cause' standard applies when the documents are not 'more than tangentially related to the merits.' The court reviewed the motion and declaration and affirmatively found that good cause existed. Although the specific factual basis for 'good cause' is not detailed in the order, the application of the correct legal framework and the affirmative finding of good cause make the decision legally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally and substantively sound. It correctly cites the controlling Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the standards for sealing judicial records. It accurately distinguishes between the 'compelling reasons' standard and the 'good cause' standard, applying the latter because the documents (an attorneys' fees motion) are likely not tangentially related to the merits of the underlying dispute. The court performed the required review and made the necessary factual finding.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WINDY COVE, INC. et al., Case No. 21-cv-1416-MMA-DEB 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 13 v. FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 14 CIRCLE K STORES, INC., [Doc. No. 191] 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion for attorneys’ fees. See Doc. 21 No. 193. Defendant simultaneously filed a motion for leave to file an unredacted version 22 of its motion and exhibits under seal. See Doc. No. 191. Defendant’s motion is 23 unopposed to date. 24 When presented with a request to file a document under seal, the Court begins with 25 the strong presumption in favor of the “general right to inspect and copy public records 26 and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 27 Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 n.7 (1978); see also Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 28 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). “Accordingly, ‘a party seeking to seal a judicial | ||record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the 2 compelling reasons standard.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 3 || 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). However, where the 4 || motion is not “more than tangentially related to the merits,” the moving party need only 5 show “good cause” to seal. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1097. 6 Having reviewed Defendant’s motion and supporting declaration, the Court finds 7 || good cause to seal the requested documents. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 8 || Defendant’s motion and DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to file Doc. No. 192 UNDER 9 ||SEAL. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: September 25, 2023 12 Mikel (lights 13 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28