Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-04068/USCOURTS-azd-3_05-cv-04068-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Torts to Land

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY,

a Delaware Corporation, 

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, 

v.

SOUTHWEST FOREST PRODUCTS,

INC., an Arizona corporation;

SOUTHWEST FOREST PRODUCTS

TRANSPORTATION INC., an Arizona

corporation; STEPHEN R. VAN DER

TOORN, LU ANNE J. VAN DER

TOORN; THE VAN DER TOORN

FAMILY TRUST

Defendants/Counterclaimants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-4068-PCT-SMM

ORDER

 Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Status Report and Motion to File Settlement

Agreement Under Seal (Doc. 47). The parties report that they have executed a settlement

agreement resolving their dispute, and request that the Court permit the agreement to be

filed under seal due to its confidential terms.

The United States Supreme Court recognized a common law right of access to

records in civil proceedings in Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc. “It is clear that the

courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and

documents, including judicial records and documents.” 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). 

Case 3:05-cv-04068-SMM Document 48 Filed 10/29/08 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 -

Nevertheless, this right is not absolute; parties may request the court to seal all or part of

the record. Id. at 598. While not outlining all the factors to be considered in deciding

whether public access is warranted, the Supreme Court stated that courts should weigh

“the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the

courts.” Id. at 602. The Supreme Court ultimately left the decision whether to seal a

document to the discretion of the district court. Id. at 599. 

The Ninth Circuit’s framework for determining when the public right of access

should be restricted requires a strong presumption in favor of public access. Hagestad v.

Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995). In making the decision whether to seal a

record, the district could should consider all relevant factors, including 

the public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether

disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for

scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement under trade secrets...After

taking all relevant factors into consideration, the district court must base its

decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. 

Id. (quoting EEOC v. Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990). 

 In their Motion, the parties state confidentiality as the reason for requesting the

filing of the agreement under seal: “The terms of the Agreement are confidential and, in

the interests of their respective businesses, the parties wish that the terms of the

Agreement not be made public.” (Doc. 47 at 8-9). However, the parties have failed to

articulate how the parties’ need for confidentiality of the settlement agreement overcomes

the strong presumption of public access to the parties’ agreement. The Court, however,

will grant the parties an opportunity to demonstrate that they meet the criteria for sealing

the settlement agreement. 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING the Joint Status Report and Motion to

File Settlement Agreement Under Seal (Doc. 47).

Case 3:05-cv-04068-SMM Document 48 Filed 10/29/08 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 -

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties have until Friday, November 14,

2008 to file supplemental information regarding the need for sealing the settlement

agreement. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED VACATING the Status Hearing scheduled for

Monday, November 3, 2008, at 1:30p.m. 

DATED this 28th day of October, 2008.

Case 3:05-cv-04068-SMM Document 48 Filed 10/29/08 Page 3 of 3