Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01710/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01710-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: Civil Miscellaneous Case

---

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 

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE 

CORPORATION AS RECEIVER FOR 

BUTTE COMMUNITY BANK, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROBERT CHING, et al, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-01710-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff requests sealing of exhibits filed with plaintiff’s Opposition to 

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment. 

ECF No. 59. The documents are excerpts from the administrative depositions conducted by the 

FDIC of defendant John Coger (14 pages), Peter J. Buck of Sandler O’Neill and Partners, LP (10 

pages), and Charles J. Mathews, Jr., a former board member of Butte Community Bank (“Butte”) 

(14 pages). Plaintiff also has redacted a few lines of text in its Opposition and Statement of Facts 

in Opposition (ECF Nos. 58, 58-1) as filed on the public docket; the court has reviewed an 

unredacted version of the brief and statement of facts, along with the deposition transcripts, in 

camera. Defendant has filed a statement of non-opposition. ECF No. 60. 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-01710-KJM-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/25/15 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

 Local Rule 141(a) provides that “[d]ocuments may be sealed only by written order 

of the Court.” The request to seal “shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing, the 

requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the 

documents, and all other relevant information.” Id. at (b). 

 It is an established principle that there is a strong presumption in favor of public 

access to court records. See Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). 

However, “access to judicial records is not absolute.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). In determining what standard to apply to requests to seal, 

the Ninth Circuit distinguishes between non-dispositive and dispositive motions. Id. at 1180. 

 To seal documents filed with a dispositive motion, as here, a party “must meet the 

high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” Id. That is, the party 

requesting to seal “must articulate[] compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . 

that outweigh . . . public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal 

citation and quotation marks omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh 

the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files 

might become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 

promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 

(quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). 

 Good cause exists to seal the deposition transcript excerpts. Title 12 of the Code 

of Federal Regulation § 308.147 provides that information and documents obtained by the FDIC 

in connection with investigations is confidential. The administrative deposition transcripts cited 

as exhibits in the opposition brief constitute information obtained in an FDIC investigation and 

are therefore confidential. Such confidential information shall not be disclosed except under 

certain limited circumstances as provided by 12 C.F.R. § 309.6 and this court’s Protective Order 

(ECF No. 14 at 5), none of which are applicable here. 

 Having reviewed the documents requested to be sealed, and considering the 

governing rules of confidentiality, plaintiff’s request to seal is GRANTED. The minor redactions 

in the plaintiff’s briefing also are APPROVED. 

Case 2:13-cv-01710-KJM-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/25/15 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

 The Clerk of the Court is directed to file under seal the documents submitted by 

plaintiff in support of its opposition (ECF Nos. 58-3, 58-4, 58-5) and the unredacted versions of 

the Opposition and Separate Statement of Facts submitted with the Opposition (ECF Nos. 58, 

58-1). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 24, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-01710-KJM-EFB Document 62 Filed 02/25/15 Page 3 of 3