Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02982/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02982-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 12:1819 FDIC: Corporate Powers

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

REZA JAFARI and FIRST AMERICAN

TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 12cv2982-LAB (RBB)

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION

TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER

vs. SEAL

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION, as Receiver for La Jolla

Bank; et al.,

Defendants.

In support of their opposition to the FDIC’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction,

or alternatively, motion for summary judgment (Docket no. 110), Plaintiffs have filed an

application to file documents under seal. (Docket no. 122.)

There is a strong underlying presumption that the public will have access to any

document filed with the Court. See Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th

Cir. 2002). The standard for sealing documents in support of briefing on a dispositive motion

is high, and requires a showing that "compelling reasons" support a need for secrecy.

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). If the request

is granted, the Court's sealing order must weigh the competing interests and articulate the

/ / /

- 1 - 12cv1971

Case 3:12-cv-02982-LAB-RBB Document 126 Filed 04/23/15 Page 1 of 2
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

factual basis for its ruling without relying on hypothesis or conjecture, and the order must be

narrowly tailored. Id. at 1179; Press-Enterprise Co. v. Super. Ct., 478 U.S. 1, 13–14 (1986).

The only reason the motion gives for sealing is that the protective order (Docket no.

44) requires it. But the protective order was issued pursuant to the parties’ joint motion, and

does not include enough analysis to show that the high standard is met for sealing

documents filed in support of briefing on a dispositive motion.

The motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs may renew it by filing an ex

parte application that shows why the standard is met, and permits the Court to make the

findings necessary to satisfy the high standard for sealing such documents. Any renewed

motion should also explain why the order that Plaintiff requests is narrowly tailored. For

example, no more should be sealed than is necessary to serve the compelling interest that

the Court must find. If the FDIC improperly designated the documents confidential, Plaintiffs

may object to the designation using the procedure provided in the protective order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 23, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv1971

Case 3:12-cv-02982-LAB-RBB Document 126 Filed 04/23/15 Page 2 of 2