Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00772/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00772-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:78m(a) Securities Exchange Act

---

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

cal 

1 07cv0772

 

 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION

TO ENFORCE ADMINISTRATIVE

SUBPOENAS OF

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Petitioner,

v.

MICHAEL NICITA and EDWARD

LEONARD,

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No.07CV0772 WQH (AJB)

Order Granting In Part and Denying 

In Part Ex Parte Application for Order

Sealing Documents

 Attorney’s for Respondent, Michael Nicita, submitted directly to chambers, an ex parte application under Local Civil Rule 79.2.b to file under seal: 1) Declaration of Charles G. La Bella In Support of

Ex Parte Application to File Papers Under Seal; 2) Proposed Order Re: Ex Parte Application for Order

Extending Time for Hearing; 3) Proposed Order Re: Ex Parte Application for Order Sealing Documents

and Supporting Declaration; 4) Ex Parte Application for Order Sealing Documents and Supporting

Declaration; 5) Proof of Service for Respondent Edward Leonard; 6) Proof of Service of Petitioner

Securities and Exchange Commission; and 7) Exhibit A. 

Case 3:07-cv-00772-WQH-AJB Document 19 Filed 12/11/07 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

1

 See Nixon v. Warner Comm., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Globe Newspaper Co. v.

Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 603 (1982); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002).

2

 Although courts may be more likely to order the protection of the information listed in Rule

26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, courts have consistently prevented disclosure of many

types of information, such as letters protected under attorney-client privilege which revealed the

weaknesses in a party's position and was inadvertently sent to the opposing side, see KL Group v. Case,

Kay, and Lynch, 829 F.2d 909, 917-19 (9th Cir.1987); medical and psychiatric records confidential

under state law, see Pearson v. Miller, 211 F.3d 57, 62-64 (3d Cir.2000); and federal and grand jury

secrecy provisions, see Krause v. Rhodes, 671 F.2d 212, 216 (6th Cir.1982). Most significantly, courts

have granted protective orders to protect confidential settlement agreements. See Hasbrouck v.

BankAmerica Housing Serv., 187 F.R.D. 453, 455 (N.D.N.Y.1999); Kalinauskas v. Wong, 151 F.R.D.

363, 365-67 (D.Nev.1993).

2 07cv0772

There is a presumptive right of public access to court records based upon common law and first

amendment grounds.1

 Even where a public right of access exists, such access may denied by the court in

order to protect sensitive personal or confidential information.2

 The court may seal documents to protect

sensitive information, however, the documents to be filed under seal will be limited by the Court to only

those documents, or portions thereof, necessary to protect such sensitive information. 

Upon review of the seven (7) documents submitted by the Respondent Michael Nicita, the Court

finds good cause to seal only Exhibit A of the documents submitted, because Exhibit A contains

confidential medical information. The remaining six (6) documents make little in any reference to the

confidential medical information set for in Exhibit A, except to state that it was submitted. Respondent

has failed to demonstrate how disclosure of the remaining documents would in any way injure Mr. Nicita

and therefore lack the good cause necessary to override the presumptive right of public access to court

records. 

For the reasons set forth above, Respondent Nicita’s ex parte application to file the abovereferenced documents under seal is GRANTED IN PART as to Exhibit A and DENIED IN PART as to

the remaining six documents. Respondent Nicita shall immediately file the remaining six documents

electronically: 1) Declaration of Charles G. La Bella In Support of Ex Parte Application to File Papers

Under Seal; 2) Proposed Order Re: Ex Parte Application for Order Extending Time for Hearing; 3)

Proposed Order Re: Ex Parte Application for Order Sealing Documents and Supporting Declaration; 4)

Ex Parte Application for Order Sealing Documents and Supporting Declaration; 5) Proof of Service for

Respondent Edward Leonard; 6) Proof of Service of Petitioner Securities and Exchange Commission. 

Case 3:07-cv-00772-WQH-AJB Document 19 Filed 12/11/07 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 07cv0772

The Court will rule on Respondent Nicita’s Ex Parte Application for Order Extending Time for Hearing

set for December 28, 2007 after Petitioner has had an opportunity to respond.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 11, 2007

Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00772-WQH-AJB Document 19 Filed 12/11/07 Page 3 of 3