Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00821/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00821-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Libel, Assault, Slander

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY JACQUES,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00821-SAB

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL 

AND REQUIRING PARTIES TO FILE 

EXHIBITS BY AUGUST 22, 2016

(ECF No. 175)

On July 28, 2016, the Court denied the parties request to file documents related to 

Defendant‟s motion for summary judgment under seal without prejudice. (ECF No. 171.) On 

August 15, 2016, Defendants filed a renewed request to seal, a declaration in support of the 

motion for summary and a corrected declaration of Kim Norton. (ECF Nos. 175-178.) 

Courts have long recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc‟ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 

597 & n. 7 (1978)). Nevertheless, this access to judicial records is not absolute. Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1172. The court has recognized a category of documents that is not subject to the right of 

public access because the documents have “traditionally been kept secret for important policy 

reasons.” Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989). Since 

Case 1:12-cv-00821-SAB Document 180 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

resolution of disputes on the merits “is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the „public‟s 

understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events[,] . . . “ „compelling 

reasons‟ must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.” Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1179.

The party seeking to have the document sealed must present “articulable facts” 

identifying the interests that favor secrecy and show that these specific interests overcome the 

presumption of access because they outweigh the public‟s interest in understanding the judicial 

process. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. The Court starts from the strong presumption in favor of 

access to public records and then considers whether the party seeking to have the record sealed 

has demonstrated a compelling reason to have the record sealed. Id. at 1178-79. This requires 

the Court to conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public in accessing the 

records and the party who seeks to keep the records secret. Id. at 1179. The Court is required to 

“articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id.

(citations omitted). 

Defendant moves to seal documents on the ground that they “generally relate[] to private 

information of customers, former and current employees, Defendant‟s internal policies, and 

procedures and operating rules of a third-party.” (ECF No. 154 at ¶ 2.) Defendant asserts that if 

the documents “are not filed under seal, the public disclosure of highly sensitive information 

contained in them could result in harm to Plaintiff, Defendant, and entities not a party to this 

litigation.” (Id. at ¶ 3.) As stated in the prior order denying the request to seal, “ „[s]imply 

mentioning a general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage 

with the documents, does not satisfy the burden‟ to show compelling reasons to seal the documents.” 

(ECF No. 171 at 2 (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184).)

On August 5, 2016, when the Court denied the parties request to file documents under 

seal without prejudice, the parties were advised that “[a]ny further motion to file documents 

under seal must set forth „articulable facts‟ identifying the interests that favor secrecy and show 

that these specific interests overcome the presumption of access because they outweigh the 

public‟s interest in understanding the judicial process.” (Order Denying Parties Request to File 

Case 1:12-cv-00821-SAB Document 180 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Documents Under Seal Without Prejudice 4:4-7, ECF No. 171.) The order provided that any 

renewed motion to seal must address the compelling reasons to seal each document which is 

requested to be sealed. (ECF No. 171 at 4:16-21.) The current motion to seal provides no 

analysis from which the Court finds a compelling reason to seal the documents at issue here. 

As with the prior motion to seal, the parties have not presented any articulable facts 

identifying the interests that favor secrecy and have not shown that these specific interests 

overcome the presumption of privilege because they outweigh the public‟s interest in 

understanding the judicial process. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. Defendant‟s motion to file 

documents under seal shall be denied. 

On August 19, 2016, oral argument on Defendant‟s motion for summary judgment was 

heard in which the parties assumed that the Court would file the documents in the public record. 

As addressed in the July 28, 2016 order, the Court does not file documents for which it denies a 

request to seal. It is up to the parties to determine if they wish to file the documents in the public 

record or withdraw them from consideration. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant‟s renewed request to seal documents is DENIED; and

2. Any documents which the parties wish to have considered in deciding the motion 

for summary judgment for which the request to seal has been denied shall be filed 

in this action by close of business on August 22, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 19, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00821-SAB Document 180 Filed 08/19/16 Page 3 of 3