Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01709/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01709-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Bruce Rolph, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

NCO Financial Systems,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1709-PHX-GMS

ORDER

The parties have submitted a Stipulation Re: Confidentiality and Protective Order

regarding confidentiality that calls for discovery materials to be kept confidential by the

parties and for confidential documents to be filed with the Court under seal (Doc. 18) . The

proposed order, in particular ¶ 9 of the proposed protective order, fails to take into account

Ninth Circuit law restricting the circumstances under which confidentiality orders may be

entered and documents in the Court’s file may be sealed.

Two standards are relevant. “First, a ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to [the

sealing of] most judicial records.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th

Cir. 2009) (citing Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2003)).

“This standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and

documents, including judicial records and documents.’ To limit this common law right of

access, a party seeking to seal judicial records must show that ‘compelling reasons supported

Case 2:10-cv-01709-GMS Document 19 Filed 03/09/11 Page 1 of 3
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 -

by specific factual findings outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

favoring disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178) (alteration and internal

citations omitted).

The second standard applies to discovery materials. “‘Private materials unearthed

during discovery’ are not part of the judicial record.” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

1180) (alteration omitted). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule 26(c) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure applies to orders rendering this category of documents confidential.

See id.; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)

(“It is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order

to the contrary, presumptively public. Rule 26(c) authorizes a district court to override this

presumption where ‘good cause’ is shown.”) (citations omitted). 

The good cause standard also applies to the sealed filing of documents attached to

non-dispositive motions because those documents are often “‘unrelated, or only tangentially

related, to the underlying cause of action.’” Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th

Cir. 2002); see Pintos, 565 F.3d at 1115. Documents attached to dispositive motions such

as motions for summary judgment, however, are governed by the compelling reasons

standard. See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. The

parties do not establish good cause or compelling reasons merely by stipulating that

documents may be filed under seal.

The parties may submit a revised proposed order that takes into account these

standards. The stipulation or motion seeking entry of the order should show good cause for

a confidentiality order governing discovery materials. The proposed order should also reflect

the fact that any party seeking to file documents under seal must show good cause for

documents attached to non-dispositive motions or compelling reasons for documents attached

to dispositive motions. Therefore,

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-01709-GMS Document 19 Filed 03/09/11 Page 2 of 3
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 -

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying the Stipulation Re Confidentiality and

Protective Order (Doc. 18) without prejudice.

DATED this 9th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01709-GMS Document 19 Filed 03/09/11 Page 3 of 3