Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00861/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00861-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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 

LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, 

a Delaware Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ENERGETIC LATH & PLASTER, INC., a 

California Corporation; ENERGETIC 

PAINTING AND DRYWALL, INC., a 

California Corporation; ROBERT CIMINI, 

an individual; GAIL CIMINI, an 

individual, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-00861-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

“[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 

Communications, 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). While “the right to inspect and copy judicial records 

is not absolute,” access in civil cases is properly denied for clearly justifiable reasons: to protect 

against “‘gratif[ication of] private spite or promot[ion of] public scandal,’” or to preclude court 

dockets from becoming “reservoirs of libelous statements,” or “sources of business information 

that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Id. at 598. As the Ninth Circuit instructs, a 

“strong presumption in favor of access” to the record governs in a court of law unless the case or 

Case 2:15-cv-00861-KJM-EFB Document 86 Filed 02/11/16 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 

2

a part of it qualifies for one of the relatively few exceptions “traditionally kept secret,” with 

secrecy allowed for good reasons. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 

(9th Cir. 2003). “Those who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to dispositive 

motions must meet the high threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” 

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz, 

331 F.3d at 1136). The compelling-reasons standard applies even if contents of the dispositive 

motion or its attachments have previously been filed under seal or are covered by a generalized 

protective order, including a discovery phase protective order. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. 

The Eastern District of California has adopted rules to clarify procedures for 

parties’ compliance with the law reviewed above. Local Rule 141 provides that documents may 

be sealed only by a written order of the court after a particularized request to seal has been made. 

E.D. Cal. L.R. 141(a). A mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. Local Rule 

141(b) expressly requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or 

other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to 

be permitted access to the document, and all relevant information.” While the court should not 

have to set forth its local rules in such detail, or review the controlling authority from which the 

rules derive, it does so here in light of the completely unjustified request to seal presented by 

Lexington in its requests to seal, ECF Nos. 55, 72, and the Ciminis in their opposition, which 

actually requests the court seal additional documents, ECF No. 71. 

The requests to seal from both Lexington and Ciminis are DENIED. The Clerk of 

Court shall return the requests and their attachments to the parties who may renew their requests, 

if they are able to in compliance with the law cited in this order. If the parties again file such 

unsupported requests to seal, the court cautions they will be required to show cause why they 

should not be subject to monetary sanctions. The Ciminis’ request for sanctions is also DENIED. 

This order resolves ECF Nos. 55, 71, 72. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: February 9, 2016. 

Case 2:15-cv-00861-KJM-EFB Document 86 Filed 02/11/16 Page 2 of 2