Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01141/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01141-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

Case No. 19-CV-01141-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAIME PRIETO LOMELI,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-CV-01141-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Re: Dkt. No. 65

On June 25, 2019, Defendants Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management, 

Inc. (collectively, the “Midland Defendants”) filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. ECF No. 42 

Defendants Hunt & Henriques (“H&H”), Michael Scott Hunt, and Janalie Ann Henriques 

(collectively, the “H&H Defendants”) joined in that motion on July 22, 2019. ECF No. 52. On 

the same day, the H&H Defendants also filed their own Motion to Compel Arbitration. ECF No. 

51 (“H&H Def. Mot. to Compel”). In connection with their respective Motions to Compel 

Arbitration, the Midland Defendants and the H&H Defendants filed redacted versions of several 

documents as exhibits. On August 19, 2019, the Court ordered Defendants to file a motion to seal, 

for parties are not permitted to unilaterally redact their filings. ECF No. 64. 

Pursuant to the Court’s order, the Midland Defendants filed an Administrative Motion to 

Case 5:19-cv-01141-LHK Document 79 Filed 09/25/19 Page 1 of 5
2

Case No. 19-CV-01141-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Seal on August 22, 2019. ECF No. 65. This order is now before the Court. Specifically, the 

Midland Defendants seek to seal portions of two documents: (1) the Purchase and Sale Agreement 

attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Sean Mulcahy, ECF No. 42-1, Ex. C, and (2) the Bill 

of Sale attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Sean Mulcahy, id., and as Exhibit 2 to the 

Declaration of William Peck, ECF. No. 42-1, Ex. B. 

Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. 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)). Accordingly, when considering a sealing request, “a strong presumption in favor 

of access is the starting point.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Parties seeking to seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of 

overcoming the presumption with “compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that 

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Compelling reasons 

justifying the sealing of court records generally exist “when such ‘court files might have 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, 435 

U.S. at 598). However, “[t]he mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the 

court to seal its records.” Id.

By contrast, records attached to non-dispositive motions generally are not subject to the 

strong presumption of access, provided those motions are “not related, or only tangentially related, 

to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1099; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1179 (“[T]he public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non-dispositive 

motions because those documents are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the 

underlying cause of action.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Parties moving to 

seal records attached to motions unrelated or only tangentially related to the merits of a case need 

Case 5:19-cv-01141-LHK Document 79 Filed 09/25/19 Page 2 of 5
3

Case No. 19-CV-01141-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

only meet the lower “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098–99; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179–80. Still, the “good 

cause” standard requires a “particularized showing” that “specific prejudice or harm will result” if 

the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 

1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). “Broad allegations of harm, 

unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” will not suffice. Beckman Indus., 

Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted).

To determine which standard applies to the Midland Defendants’ Administrative Motion to 

Seal—“compelling reasons” or “good cause”—the Court must first determine whether the 

underlying Motion to Compel Arbitration is a dispositive or non-dispositive motion for sealing 

purposes. The Ninth Circuit has not ruled on this issue, nor has it provided clear guidance on 

distinguishing dispositive and non-dispositive motions generally. Martin v. Wells Fargo Bank, 

N.A., Case No. CV 12–0630–SI, 2013 WL 5441973, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2013). In addition, 

district courts in this circuit have disagreed as to whether a motion to compel arbitration is a 

dispositive or non-dispositive motion with regard to sealing. Compare Golden Boy Promotions, 

Inc. v. Top Rank, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-01619-RLH, 2011 WL 686362, at *1 (D. Nev. Feb. 17, 2011)

(“A motion to compel arbitration is a dispositive motion.”), with Verinata Health, Inc. v. Ariosa 

Diagnostics, Inc., No. 12-CV-05501-SI, 2015 WL 5117083, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2015), 

aff’d, 830 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Because a motion to compel arbitration is not dispositive, 

the ‘good cause’ standard applies.”). The Court need not venture into this disagreement, however. 

Because the Midland Defendants have conceded the “compelling reasons” standard applies, see 

ECF No. 65 at 1, the Court applies it here. 

In our district, in addition to meeting the applicable standard under Kamakana, all parties 

requesting sealing must comply with Civil Local Rule 79–5, including that rule’s requirement that 

the request must “establish . . . that the document, or portions thereof, are privileged, protectable 

as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Civ. L.R. 79–5(b). The sealing 

request must also “be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Id. 

Case 5:19-cv-01141-LHK Document 79 Filed 09/25/19 Page 3 of 5
4

Case No. 19-CV-01141-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

In the instant motion, the Midland Defendants’ request to seal almost the entirety of both 

exhibits is clearly overbroad in that it seeks to seal vast swaths of non-sealable material. As a 

result, the request is not “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material,” as mandated 

by Civil Local Rule 79-5(b).

For example, the redacted portions of the Purchase and Sale Agreement encompass such

items as definitions of generic terms, introductory sentences, and form statements like “Balance of 

Page Intentionally Left Blank.” See, e.g., ECF No. 65-4 at 5-6, 9, 11, 18. In addition, the

unredacted portion of the Affidavit of Sale of Account identifies the affiant as Terri Bergman, yet

the Midland Defendants seek to seal Terri Bergman’s signature. ECF No. 65-4 at 3. None of 

these examples are sealable under the law cited by the Midland Defendants. See ECF No. 65 at 3-

4. It is true that “business strategy,” TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Techs. Ltd., No. CV 

09-1531-PHX-JAT, 2011 WL 6182346, at *3 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2011), “financial projections,” 

Krieger v. Atheros Commc’ns, Inc., No. 11-CV-00640-LHK, 2011 WL 2550831, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 

June 25, 2011), and “confidential sales data” about a company’s products, Bauer Bros. LLC v. 

Nike, Inc., No. 09CV500-WQH-BGS, 2012 WL 1899838, at *4 (S.D. Cal. May 24, 2012), have 

been found sealable by courts. But much of the redacted material does not fall into any of these

categories of information. The Court encourages the Midland Defendants to review Ninth Circuit 

law regarding what is sealable in a commercial agreement. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. 

App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding that “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed 

minimum payment terms” meet the compelling reasons standard for sealing). 

What is more, the Midland Defendants’ claim that confidentiality “is critical to Midland’s 

continued business interests” is general and conclusory, rather than particularized to each piece of 

information sought to be sealed. “[C]onclusory offerings do not rise to the level of ‘compelling 

reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

1182 (requiring a specific compelling reason for each redaction rather than “a general category of 

privilege”). 

Therefore, the Midland Defendants’ Administrative Motion to Seal is DENIED without 

Case 5:19-cv-01141-LHK Document 79 Filed 09/25/19 Page 4 of 5
5

Case No. 19-CV-01141-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

prejudice. The Midland Defendants may submit a renewed request to seal that is narrowly tailored 

to seek sealing only of material that is sealable under applicable case law. If the Midland 

Defendants choose to refile their motion, it must be filed by October 11, 2019. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:19-cv-01141-LHK Document 79 Filed 09/25/19 Page 5 of 5