Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01377/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-01377-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

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 

HOUSTON CASUALTY COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STEVE METHENY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No.: 2:14-cv-01377-KJM-CMK 

ORDER 

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s request to seal exhibits B and D to the 

amended declaration of Robert D. Goldberg filed in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment. (Pl’s. Notice of Req. Seal, ECF No. 39 at 2.) Plaintiff argues those documents “were 

designated for protection” under the protective order issued by the court in the multidistrict 

litigation case of In Re: Helicopter Crash Near Weaverville, California on August 5, 2008, No. 

09-2053. (Id.) As explained below, the court DENIES plaintiff’s request to seal. 

Local Rule 141(a) provides that “[d]ocuments may be sealed only upon written 

order of the Court.” A 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.” Id. 141(b). 

There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to court records. See 

Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). However, “access to judicial 

Case 2:14-cv-01377-KJM-CMK Document 45 Filed 09/16/15 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

records is not absolute.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 

2006). In determining what standard to apply to a request to seal, the Ninth Circuit distinguishes 

between non-dispositive and dispositive motions. Id. at 1180. Here, plaintiff’s request to seal is 

in connection with its summary judgment motion, which is a dispositive motion. 

To seal documents filed with a dispositive motion, such as summary judgment, a 

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

That is, the party requesting to seal “must articulate[] compelling reasons supported by specific 

factual findings . . . that outweigh . . . public interest in understanding the judicial process.” Id. at 

1178–79 (internal citation, quotation marks omitted). “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient 

to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such 

‘court files might 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.” Id.

at 1179 (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 589 (1978)). “The ‘compelling 

reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously 

filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 

Here, the court finds plaintiff has not met its burden of satisfying the “compelling 

reasons” standard. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the issuance of the protective 

order involved the court’s considered application of the “compelling reasons” standard. The 

presumption of access to court records is not rebutted simply because a court has approved a 

stipulated discovery phase protective order. Id. at 1183. In addition, plaintiff does not point to 

any authority in support of its request to seal. Hence, plaintiff does not meet the requirement that 

a party make a particularized showing of “compelling reasons” to seal documents submitted in 

connection with a dispositive motion. 

Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiff’s request. If plaintiff wishes to rely on 

Exhibits B and D, in support of its motion for summary judgment, it must file them on the public 

docket within seven days. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 16, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-01377-KJM-CMK Document 45 Filed 09/16/15 Page 2 of 2