Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00226/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00226-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 

---

– 1 – 15cv226

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 15-cv-0226-BAS-DHB

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART AMENDED 

RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL

[ECF No. 92],

(2) GRANTING SECOND 

MOTION TO SEAL

[ECF No. 117],

(3) DENYING AS MOOT 

RENEWED MOTION TO SEAL

[ECF No. 89]

v.

TOTAL WEALTH 

MANAGEMENT, INC. and JACOB 

KEITH COOPER,

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION

Presently before the Court in this SEC receivership proceeding is Defendant 

Cooper’s Amended Renewed Motion to Seal Documentation Regarding the Source 

of Funds for Retention of Counsel (ECF No. 92) and a related Second Motion to Seal 

(ECF No. 117). Cooper seeks to file under seal an Amended Motion for 

Determination Assets are Untainted by Alleged Fraud and related exhibits. The SEC 

does not oppose. (ECF No. 96.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS

Case 3:15-cv-00226-BAS-MSB Document 132 Filed 01/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
– 2 – 15cv226

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

IN PART and DENIES IN PART Cooper’s amended renewed motion to seal 

documentation regarding the source of funds (ECF No. 92) and GRANTS the related 

second motion (ECF No. 117).

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy 

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. 

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). “Unless a particular court record 

is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the 

starting point.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 

2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 

2003)). “The presumption of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although 

independent—indeed, particularly because they are independent—to have a measure 

of accountability and for the public to have confidence in the administration of 

justice.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044, 1048 (2d Cir. 1995)).

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the 

strong presumption of access. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135. The showing required to meet 

this burden depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that 

is “more than tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. 

Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1102 (9th Cir. 2016). When the underlying 

motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling reasons” 

standard applies. Id. at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass the 

tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies. Id.

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest 

in disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might 

have become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify 

private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 

secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere 

Case 3:15-cv-00226-BAS-MSB Document 132 Filed 01/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
– 3 – 15cv226

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

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. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136). The decision to seal 

documents is “one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court” upon 

consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case.” Nixon, 

435 U.S. at 599.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, the Court finds that Cooper’s Amended Motion for 

Determination Assets are Untainted by Alleged Fraud is more than tangentially 

related to the merits of the case. The SEC has alleged a pervasive fraud by Cooper 

involving the alleged misappropriation of advisory client funds to settle a prior SEC 

enforcement proceeding, as well as to pay attorneys Cooper hired to defend him in a 

class action brought by injured investors. Thus, Cooper’s motion for a determination 

that certain assets are untainted by fraud implicates the very conduct of which Cooper

has been accused. The compelling reasons standard applies.

Under the circumstances presented, the Court finds the compelling reasons 

standard satisfied as to ECF No. 93–1 (Exhibit); ECF No. 93–2 (Declaration of 

Michael Cooper); ECF No. 118 (Second Declaration of Michael Cooper); ECF No. 

118–1; and ECF No. 118–2. These documents contain non-party Michael Cooper’s 

personal financial information—including bank account numbers and balances—and 

are thus not entitled to the common law presumption of access. See, e.g., In re Boston 

Herald, Inc., 321 F.3d 174, 190 (1st Cir. 2003) (“Personal financial information, such 

as one’s income or bank account balance, is universally presumed to be private, not 

public.”) (citation omitted); Chapman v. Krutonog, Civil No. 08–00579 HG–LEK,

2010 WL 727577, at *5 (D. Haw. Feb. 26, 2010) (noting that litigants “certainly have 

a privacy interest in financial information such as their bank account or credit card 

numbers” because “[s]uch information is not publicly available and could lead to 

irreparable harm if it became publicly available”). Although the motion at issue is 

Case 3:15-cv-00226-BAS-MSB Document 132 Filed 01/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
– 4 – 15cv226

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

more than tangentially related to the merits, the Court concludes that Michael 

Cooper’s privacy interest outweighs the public’s right to access and inspect his 

individual account information. 

However, the Court does not find the compelling reasons standard satisfied 

with respect to the Amended Motion for Determination Assets are Untainted by 

Alleged Fraud. (ECF No. 93, “Amended Motion”). Although the exhibits and 

declarations attached to this motion contain personal financial information that link

Michael Cooper to specific account numbers, the Amended Motion itself largely 

limits the discussion of financial information to the amounts involved in specific

transfers or transactions. Defendant Cooper has not shown that public knowledge of 

the amounts of these transfers, without reference to specific identifying account 

information, could become a “vehicle for improper purposes.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d 

at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). Therefore, the Amended Motion (ECF No. 

93) must be filed on the public docket, and Defendant Cooper will be permitted to 

redact references to Michael Cooper’s account numbers before doing so. (See, e.g.,

ECF No. 93, 3:8, 3:19.)

CONCLUSION

Cooper’s Amended Renewed Motion to Seal Documentation Regarding the 

Source of Funds for Retention of Counsel is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED 

IN PART. (ECF No. 92.) The Clerk of Court is instructed to file under seal the 

documents currently lodged as ECF No. 93–1 and ECF No. 93–2. However, Cooper 

must file the Amended Motion for Determination Assets are Untainted by Alleged 

Fraud (ECF No. 93) on the public docket after redacting Michael Cooper’s account 

number information. Defendant Cooper is ORDERED to file the redacted Amended 

Motion for Determination Assets are Untainted by Alleged Fraud no later than 

February 2, 2017.

Cooper’s Second Motion to Seal Documentation Regarding the Source of 

Funds for Retention of Counsel is GRANTED. (ECF No. 117.) The Clerk of Court 

Case 3:15-cv-00226-BAS-MSB Document 132 Filed 01/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
– 5 – 15cv226

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

is instructed to file under seal the documents currently lodged as ECF No. 118

(Second Declaration of Michael Cooper), ECF No. 118–1, and ECF No. 118–2.

Finally, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant Cooper’s Renewed Motion 

to Seal filed on March 18, 2016 (the “March 18 motion”). (ECF No. 89.) The 

Amended Renewed Motion to Seal considered by the Court in this Order (ECF No. 

92) duplicates the March 18 motion in its entirety, rendering the March 18 motion 

inoperative.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 30, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-00226-BAS-MSB Document 132 Filed 01/30/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5