Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-03005/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-03005-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441bc Removal- Breach of Contract

---

– 1 – 14-cv-3005 DMS (RBB)

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

JUSTIN SPANGLER, individually 

and on behalf of all those similarly 

situated, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 14-cv-3005 DMS (RBB)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER 

SEAL

v.

NATIONAL COLLEGE OF 

TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION, et 

al.,

Defendants.

On September 2, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file under seal

their reply brief in support of their motion for partial summary judgment along with 

other documents supporting that reply brief. (See Docket No. 100.) 

“Courts have long recognized ‘a general right to inspect and copy public 

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Rieckborn v. 

Velti PLC, No. 13-cv-03889-WHO, 2014 WL 4964313, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 

2014) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978)). 

However, “[t]his right is not absolute. To balance the competing interests of the 

public’s right of access against litigants’ need for confidentiality, a party seeking to 

file under seal materials related to dispositive motions must provide ‘compelling 

reasons’ to do so.” Id. (quoting Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

Case 3:14-cv-03005-DMS-RBB Document 154 Filed 08/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
– 2 – 14-cv-3005 DMS (RBB)

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

1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). Under this standard, “a party seeking to seal materials 

must ‘articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings,’ 

providing the court with ‘articulable facts’ identifying the particular interests 

favoring secrecy and showing how those interests outweigh the ‘strong presumption’ 

favoring disclosure.” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-81). “In general, 

compelling reasons sufficient to justify sealing exist when the materials ‘might have 

become a vehicle for improper purposes, such as ... to gratify private spite, promote 

public scandal, ... or release trade secrets.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1179). “‘The 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. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 

1179). 

Here, Plaintiffs have not provided compelling reasons for filing the identified 

documents under seal. Accordingly, their motion is denied. The Clerk of Court 

shall file the documents according to the regular filing procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2017

Case 3:14-cv-03005-DMS-RBB Document 154 Filed 08/15/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2