Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00034/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-00034-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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 

MICHAEL McCUNE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

PARTY CITY CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:14-cv-00034-KJM-EFB 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Michael McCune requests the sealing of a document to be submitted in 

opposition to defendant Donahue Schriber Realty Group, LP’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

ECF No. 27-8. As explained below, plaintiff’s request is DENIED. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Procedural History 

Plaintiff filed the Complaint on January 7, 2014, alleging ten architectural barriers 

and asserting causes of action for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the 

Disabled Persons Act, and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, and Denial of Full and Equal Access to 

Public Facilities. ECF No. 1. Eight of the ten alleged architectural barriers were located within 

the interior of the Party City store, operated by defendant Party City Corporation. Defendant 

Party City settled with plaintiff and was dismissed from this action on March 17, 2014. See ECF 

Case 2:14-cv-00034-KJM-EFB Document 39 Filed 01/12/16 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

Nos. 7, 9. Only two of the alleged architectural barriers relate to defendant Donahue Schriber, the 

owner of the retail shopping center facility: that there are no accessible parking spaces at the 

Party City store, and that at least one of the spaces designated as being accessible lacks an 

International Symbol of Accessibility. 

B. Martinez Settlement Agreement

On October 20, 2008, plaintiff’s counsel filed a complaint against defendant 

Donahue Schriber and a different tenant regarding the Petco store located at the same shopping 

center facility, titled Tony Martinez v. Petco Animal Supplies, et al., Case No: 2:08-cv-02484-

JAM-JFM (E.D. Cal.). In that case, the plaintiff alleged that disabled parking spaces lacked 

access aisles. 

In its Motion for Summary Judgment in the instant action, defendant Donahue 

Schriber submits that in order to settle the Martinez action, it agreed to and did de-commission a 

parking space and provided accessible parking elsewhere. ECF No. 26-1 at 2. Defendant claims 

the parking space at issue in the instant action for allegedly lacking an International Symbol of 

Accessibility is the same space that was de-commissioned as provided by the Martinez settlement 

agreement. Id. at 3–4. 

In plaintiff’s filings in opposition to defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 

plaintiff does not dispute that the parking space at issue was de-commissioned as an accessible 

space, but he disputes defendant’s characterization of the Martinez settlement agreement. See 

ECF No. 27-1 at 2–3. On November 20, 2015, plaintiff requested to file the Martinez settlement 

agreement under seal as a supporting exhibit in opposition to defendant’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment. ECF No. 27-8. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

Local Rule 141 provides that “[d]ocuments may be sealed only by written order of 

the Court, upon the showing required by applicable law.” L.R. 141(a). The request to seal “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 documents, and all other relevant 

information.” L.R. 141(b). 

Case 2:14-cv-00034-KJM-EFB Document 39 Filed 01/12/16 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

The common-law “right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute.” 

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). A litigant may request court records 

be sealed or redacted. See id. (listing traditional examples). In the Ninth Circuit, courts faced 

with requests to seal or redact begin “with a strong presumption in favor of access to court 

records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). In the 

context of a dispositive motion, such as one for summary judgment, the party seeking to seal or 

redact a document “bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption” by “articulat[ing] 

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of 

access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 

judicial process.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 

2006) (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 and Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 

1995)) (quotation marks and alterations omitted). Commonly cited “compelling reasons” include 

the need to avoid “private spite,” “public scandal,” and to prevent a court’s records from 

becoming “reservoirs of libelous statement for press consumption,” or “sources of business 

information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.” Nixon, 435 U.S. at 589 (citations 

and internal quotation marks omitted). The presumption of access may not be overcome on the 

basis of unsupported hypothesis or conjecture. See Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434. 

III. DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff requests to file under seal the settlement agreement from the Martinez

case, as Exhibit E to plaintiff’s Opposition to defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 

because the agreement contains a mutual confidentiality clause that prohibits its disclosure. ECF 

No. 27-8. 

Plaintiff has not met the requirements for sealing provided by the Local Rules and 

the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiff’s request simply relies on the terms of the settlement agreement itself 

without citing relevant case law and articulating compelling reasons for sealing. See L.R. 141(b); 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. Because plaintiff has not satisfied the requirements for sealing, 

plaintiff’s request is denied without prejudice to submitting a properly briefed request, if such a 

request may be made consonant with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. In the alternative, 

Case 2:14-cv-00034-KJM-EFB Document 39 Filed 01/12/16 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

plaintiff may file the agreement on the public docket, or withdraw the settlement agreement as a 

supporting exhibit, in which case the court will not consider it in evaluating defendant’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment. L.R. 141(e). 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s request to seal is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 11, 2016. 

Case 2:14-cv-00034-KJM-EFB Document 39 Filed 01/12/16 Page 4 of 4