Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00821/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00821-28/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 320
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Libel, Assault, Slander

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY JACQUES,

Plaintiff,

v.

BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00821-SAB

ORDER DENYING PARTIES REQUEST TO 

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(ECF Nos. 154, 164)

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

On June 27, 2016, Defendant Bank of America filed a motion for summary judgment and 

the instant motion to seal. (ECF Nos. 145-154.) On July 18, 2016, Plaintiff Troy Jacques filed a 

notice of joinder in Defendant’s request to seal. (ECF No. 164.) 

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

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. 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)). Nevertheless, this access to judicial records is not absolute. Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1172. The court has recognized a category of documents that is not subject to the right of 

public access because the documents have “traditionally been kept secret for important policy 

reasons.” Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989). Since 

resolution of disputes on the merits “is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s 

understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events[,] . . . “ ‘compelling 

reasons’ must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.” Kamakana, 

Case 1:12-cv-00821-SAB Document 171 Filed 07/28/16 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

447 F.3d at 1179.

The party seeking to have the document sealed must present “articulable facts” 

identifying the interests that favor secrecy and show that these specific interests overcome the 

presumption of access because they outweigh the public’s interest in understanding the judicial 

process. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. The Court starts from the strong presumption in favor of 

access to public records and then considers whether the party seeking to have the record sealed 

has demonstrated a compelling reason to have the record sealed. Id. at 1178-79. This requires 

the Court to conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public in accessing the 

records and the party who seeks to keep the records secret. Id. at 1179. The Court is required to 

“articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Id.

(citations omitted). 

The parties move to seal documents on the ground that they generally relate to 

Defendants’ confidential investigation practices, Defendant’s internal policies and procedures,

and the operating rules of a third-party. Defendant argues that failure to seal these documents 

could result in harm to the parties to this action and entities that are not parties in this litigation.

Defendant seeks to seal exhibits to depositions of Plaintiff, Laura White, Rai Otero, and 

Kim Norton arguing they relate to the confidential fraud investigation of unauthorized access 

into customer’s online accounts. Defendant argues that the documents contain confidential and 

commercially sensitive information relating to Defendant’s internal fraud investigation 

procedures. Defendant asserts that these documents are not available to the public or 

Defendant’s employees outside of the claims and investigation department. Defendant contends 

that if disclosed these internal fraud policies could be misused by third parties and cause 

Defendant to suffer competitive harm or financial loss. However, “[s]imply mentioning a 

general category of privilege, without any further elaboration or any specific linkage with the 

documents, does not satisfy the burden” to show compelling reasons to seal the documents. 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1184. 

Plaintiff joins in Defendant’s request to seal and submits numerous documents without 

any discussion of why any document is entitled to be filed under seal. The Court finds that the 

Case 1:12-cv-00821-SAB Document 171 Filed 07/28/16 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

parties have not demonstrated that compelling reasons exist to seal the documents in this 

instance. 

First, the fact that a party designates a document as confidential does not demonstrate 

good cause, much less a compelling reason outweighing the public interest in accessing the 

records. Many of the documents submitted appear to be part of the file into the investigation of 

the alleged unauthorized access of client accounts. Defendant has not set forth any reason, and 

the Court cannot find, that the disclosure of these documents themselves would “open the door to 

misuse of Defendant’s internal fraud policies” or cause Defendant to suffer competitive harm or 

financial loss.” The fact that the document was part of the investigative file is not sufficient by 

itself to disclose Defendant’s internal fraud policy. 

For example, Plaintiff seeks to seal a letter from Defendant informing him that the 

investigation is complete and his record will be retained by Early Warning Systems. (Notice of 

Joinder of Defendant’s Request to Seal Documents, Exhibit D:1.) This document includes no 

discussion of Defendant’s policy and the Court finds no compelling reason to seal this document. 

Additionally, Defendant seeks to seal the written statement of Plaintiff regarding his access of 

client accounts, but sets forth no facts to establish that any proprietary information is included in 

Plaintiff’s statement. More than a general assertion is required to meet the burden of showing 

that a compelling reason exists to seal records. Similarly, Defendant seeks to seal the applicant 

acknowledgement form signed by Plaintiff when he applied with Bank of America. Defendant’s 

argument that this is part of the fraud investigation does not articulate how the public release of 

this document will cause Defendant to suffer competitive harm or financial loss. 

Finally, the parties seek to file documents from third party, Early Warning System, under 

seal stating that confidential business information should be sealed to protect against unfair 

market advantage, however no facts are presented by which the Court can find that such 

documents are actually confidential business information or any unfair market advantage would 

occur if they were publically filed in this action. 

The Court finds that the parties have not presented “articulable facts” identifying the 

interests that favor secrecy and have not shown that these specific interests overcome the 

Case 1:12-cv-00821-SAB Document 171 Filed 07/28/16 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

presumption of access because they outweigh the public’s interest in understanding the judicial 

process. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. The Court recognizes that the parties may be able to 

assert a compelling reason to file some of the documents under seal; and therefore, the request 

shall be denied without prejudice. Any further motion to file documents under seal must set 

forth “articulable facts” identifying the interests that favor secrecy and show that these specific 

interests overcome the presumption of access because they outweigh the public’s interest in 

understanding the judicial process. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180. 

The Court also notes that Defendant request to seal customer activation spreadsheets that 

include personal information of customers and their e-mail addresses. However, the exhibit 

provided to the Court does not contain customer information or e-mail addresses, but appears to 

be a list of associates and indicates whether the employee was terminated. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s request to seal exhibits in support of its motion for summary 

judgment and Plaintiff’s notice of joinder of Defendant’s request to seal are 

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

2. If the parties want the Court to consider the documents included in the request to 

seal in deciding the instant motion, within fourteen (14) days from the date of 

entry of this order, they shall file a motion to seal addressing the compelling 

reason to seal each document which is requested to be filed under seal; or file the 

documents as an addendum to the motion for summary judgment or opposition to 

motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 27, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00821-SAB Document 171 Filed 07/28/16 Page 4 of 4