Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02246/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02246-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1030 Fraud &amp; Related Activity in Connection with Computers

---

1

18-CV-2246 W (MSB)

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

BAY VISTA METHODIST HEIGHTS, 

INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DENISE BENZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 18-CV-2246 W (MSB)

ORDER:

(1) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 

SEAL [DOC. 26]; AND 

(2) GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO 

CONTINUE HEARING ON 

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S MOTION 

TO WITHDRAW [DOC. 27]

Pending before the Court are: (1) a joint motion to seal the stricken portions of the 

answer and the opposition to a motion to strike [Doc. 26]; and (2) a joint motion to 

continue the hearing date on defense counsel’s motion to withdraw. [Doc. 27.] The 

Court decides the matters without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). 

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS both joint motions.

//

//

//

//

Case 3:18-cv-02246-W-MSB Document 29 Filed 02/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-CV-2246 W (MSB)

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

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal law creates a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. 

But this right of access is not absolute. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court–

N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999). “Every court has supervisory 

power over its own records and files[,]” and may provide access to court documents at its 

discretion. See Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting

Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). District courts 

therefore have authority to seal and unseal court records, a power that derives from their 

inherent supervisory power. See Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434. 

When a district court is asked to seal court records in a civil case, the presumption 

in favor of access can be overcome by a showing of “sufficiently important 

countervailing interests.” See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102. The factors 

relevant to determining whether this presumption has been overcome include the “

‘public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the 

material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes 

or infringement upon trade secrets.’ ” Hagestad, 49 F.3d at 1434 (quoting EEOC v. 

Erection Co., Inc., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990). “After taking all relevant factors 

into consideration, the district court must base its decision on a compelling reason and 

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

(citing Valley Broad. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1295 (9th Cir. 

1986)). 

As a natural consequence of the public’s right of access to records in civil cases, 

the presumption of public access cannot be overcome by a mere stipulation of the parties. 

As Judge Posner recognized, the district judge is duty-bound to scrutinize any request to 

seal court documents and therefore “may not rubber stamp a stipulation to seal the 

record.” Citizens First Nat. Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 945 

(7th Cir. 1999); accord City of Hartford v. Chase, 942 F.2d 130, 136 (1st Cir. 1991) 

Case 3:18-cv-02246-W-MSB Document 29 Filed 02/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-CV-2246 W (MSB)

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

(“[T]he trial court—not the parties themselves—should scrutinize every such agreement 

involving the sealing of court papers and what, if any, of them are to be sealed . . . .”). 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Joint Motion to Seal

Parties jointly move to seal the previously stricken material in the Answer and 

Defendants’ opposition to the motion to strike. [Doc. 26.] 

As discussed in this Court’s February 6 order, the material in question alleges 

criminal activity by a nonparty, untethered to the claims in the Complaint. It 

unnecessarily reflects on the moral character of a third party. It has been stricken. (See 

Feb. 6, 2019 Order [Doc. 19].)

Parties seek to seal only portions of the documents in question, leaving the rest 

publicly accessible. (Id. [Doc. 26] 1:17–23.) It is not possible for the Court to seal only 

portions of the documents. However, as sufficiently important countervailing reasons 

exist to overcome the presumption of public access, the documents will be sealed. See

San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102.

Defendants shall file appropriately redacted, publicly accessible copies of the 

documents. These redacted versions will be filed by Friday, March 1, 2019.

B. Joint Motion to Continue Hearing on Defense Counsel’s Motion to 

Withdraw

Parties jointly move to continue the hearing date of defense counsel’s motion to 

withdraw [Doc. 18] from March 4, 2019 to April 8, 2019. (Joint Mot. for Extension

[Doc. 27].) Good cause appearing, this application will be granted.

//

//

//

//

Case 3:18-cv-02246-W-MSB Document 29 Filed 02/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-CV-2246 W (MSB)

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

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

The joint motion to file under seal is GRANTED. [Doc. 26.] Defendant’s Answer 

and the opposition to the motion to strike are sealed. [Docs. 10, 13.] 

Defendants are ordered to file appropriately redacted copies of the documents in 

question. Such documents must be filed by Friday, March 1, 2019.

The joint motion to continue the hearing date on defense counsel’s motion to 

withdraw is GRANTED. [Doc. 27.] The hearing date on the motion to withdraw [Doc. 

18] is now Monday, April 8, 2019. The briefing deadlines will be controlled by the 

local rules.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 22, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02246-W-MSB Document 29 Filed 02/22/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4