Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01397/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01397-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SIERRA PACIFIC MORTGAGE 

COMPANY, INC.,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-1397-JAM-KJN

ORDER

Presently before the court are plaintiff JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.’s (“plaintiff”) and 

defendant Sierra Pacific Mortgage Company, Inc.’s (“defendant”) requests to seal documents. 

(ECF Nos. 116, 119.) For the reasons discussed below, the court denies both parties’ requests to 

seal.

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

the Court.” In general, 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). Accordingly, a party may request the court seal certain documents upon a 

showing that such a request is warranted. In determining what standard to apply to requests to 

seal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals distinguishes between non-dispositive and dispositive 

Case 2:13-cv-01397-JAM-KJN Document 121 Filed 02/25/16 Page 1 of 4
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

motions. Id. at 1180.

A party requesting to seal a document filed with a non-dispositive motion, such as the 

parties’ discovery motions here, needs to demonstrate “good cause.” Id. This requirement is 

because the public’s interest in non-dispositive materials is weaker than its interest in dispositive 

materials, which require the existence of “compelling reasons” before they may be sealed. Id.; 

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). To satisfy the “good cause” 

standard, “the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm 

will result” if the request to seal is denied. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 

307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific 

examples or articulated reasoning” are insufficient. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 

F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d 

Cir. 1986)).

Here, plaintiff asks the court to seal the following documents: (1) Plaintiff’s 

Supplemental Declaration of William R. Betz, filed as “Exhibit B” to plaintiff’s appendix of 

evidence in support of its motion to compel and in opposition to defendant’s motion to compel

(the “Appendix”) (ECF No. 115); (2) Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental Declaration of William R. 

Betz, filed as “Exhibit C” to the Appendix; (3) Federal National Mortgage Association’s (“Fannie 

Mae”) Declaration of Joyce Amoo, filed as “Exhibit D” to the Appendix; (4) Deposition 

Transcript of William R. Betz dated November 20, 2015, filed as “Exhibit E” to the Appendix; 

(5) the transcript of the July 16, 2015 hearing before the undersigned, filed as “Exhibit K” to the 

Appendix and located in the docket at ECF No. 72; (6) the transcript of the December 10, 2015 

hearing before the undersigned, filed as “Exhibit O” to the Appendix and located in the docket at 

ECF No. 93; and (7) the transcript of the January 7, 2016 hearing before the undersigned, filed as 

“Exhibit Q” to the Appendix and located in the docket at ECF No. 109. (ECF No. 116.) Similar 

to plaintiff, defendant also requests the court to seal Plaintiff’s Supplemental Declaration of 

William R. Betz. (ECF No. 119.) Defendant requests further that the court seal the parties’ joint 

statement filed in connection with defendant’s pending motion to compel. (Id.)

////

Case 2:13-cv-01397-JAM-KJN Document 121 Filed 02/25/16 Page 2 of 4
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

With respect to all of the documents the parties request the court to seal, both parties 

assert that sealing is warranted because plaintiff has designated the documents as “confidential”

pursuant to the Stipulated Confidentiality Protective Order filed at ECF No. 40 and because the 

documents contain confidential information regarding the contents of the October 2013 settlement 

agreements between plaintiff, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac that are the subject of defendant’s 

pending motion to compel. (ECF No. 116 at 2-4; ECF No. 119 at 2.) Specific to its request, 

plaintiff also argues, without citing any supporting authority, that such documents reveal 

confidential information regarding Fannie Mae and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage 

Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) and that, as third parties not participating in this litigation, these 

agencies have a right to not have that information included in the public record. (ECF No. 116 at 

2-4.) Finally, plaintiff contends, without further elaboration, that the information contained in the 

documents it requests to seal “could harm either [plaintiff] or the Agencies in future business 

dealings as [they] involve[ ] confidential, negotiated terms.” (Id.)

After considering the parties arguments in support of sealing and after reviewing the 

documents the parties request to seal, the court finds that the parties’ requests do not meet the 

“good cause” requirement. First, neither party provides any specific examples of harm that will 

result if the contents of the documents they request to seal are included in the publically available 

court record. See Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd, 307 F.3d at 1210-11; Beckman Indus., Inc, 966 

F.2d at 476. At most, the parties assert that disclosure will cause some sort of vague harm to 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to plaintiff’s future dealings with those agencies without 

providing any indication to why such harm will occur. Furthermore, a review of the documents 

the parties seek to seal—which include multiple transcripts of court hearings in this matter that 

have been a part of the public record for months prior to the parties’ requests—strongly indicates 

that these documents do not contain the sort of confidential information that would warrant their 

sealing. Indeed, many of the documents the parties seek to seal discuss what is not in the 

settlement agreements, rather than the terms of those agreements on which the parties rely to 

support their claims of confidentiality. Furthermore, to the extent the documents do provide 

information regarding the settlement agreements, that discussion is minimal and general in nature, 

Case 2:13-cv-01397-JAM-KJN Document 121 Filed 02/25/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

appearing to reveal none of the specifics that would support sealing the entirety of the documents

as the parties request. 

In short, the court finds that neither party, nor any third party, will suffer undue prejudice 

or harm as a result of the documents the parties seek to seal being filed in the public record. 

Accordingly, the court denies both parties’ requests to seal without prejudice to a renewed request 

that makes a more particularized showing as to why good cause exists to have the requested

documents filed under seal.

In light of the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to seal (ECF 

No. 116) and defendant’s motion to seal (ECF No. 119) are DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2016

Case 2:13-cv-01397-JAM-KJN Document 121 Filed 02/25/16 Page 4 of 4