Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01585/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-01585-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 25:640 Indian Tribal Rights

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

State Defendants have made a motion to file under seal certain portions of the declaration 

of Rachelle Ryan in support of their motion for summary judgement. Doc. 36. Related to their 

motion, State Defendants seek to file redacted versions of the declaration, their brief in support of 

their summary judgement motion, and statement of undisputed facts in the public docket of the 

case. They explain that the declaration “contains confidential and sensitive information regarding 

the finances of the class III gaming facility operated by the plaintiff Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun 

Indians of the Colusa Indian Community (Tribe). The State Defendants are required by the terms 

of the tribal-state class III gaming compact to maintain the confidentiality of the subject 

information.” Doc. 36, 1:26-2:3. The motion was filed ex parte but the State Defendants represent 

that the Tribal Plaintiff supports this request to file under seal. Doc. 36, 2:9-11.

All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. 

v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). “[T]he courts of this country recognize a 

CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN 

INDIANS OF THE COLUSA INDIAN 

COMMUNITY a federally recognized 

Indian Colusa,

Plaintiff

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, and GAVIN 

NEWSOM IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Defendants

CASE NO. 2:20-CV-1585 AWI SKO

ORDER RE: MOTION TO FILE UNDER 

SEAL

(Doc. 36)

Case 2:20-cv-01585-KES-SKO Document 37 Filed 06/16/21 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

general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and 

documents.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2016), 

citations omitted. Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents: “compelling 

reasons” and “good cause.” “[J]udicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated] 

differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. 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. A ‘good cause’ showing under Rule 26(c) will suffice 

to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive motions.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006), citations omitted. The declaration the State 

Defendants seek to file under seal is proffered in support of a motion for summary judgement. 

Thus, the compelling reasons standard applies. “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to 

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

files might have 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. The 

mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or 

exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. at

1179. 

The State Defendants’ request is limited. They seek only to seal those parts of Ryan’s 

declaration that reveals Tribal Plaintiff’s number of gaming devices, total gaming revenues, and 

the total contribution to the Special Distribution Fund. See Doc. 35-2, 2:15-25. The State 

Defendants represent that these numbers are meant to be confidential under the terms of the 1999 

Compacts. “The existence of a confidentiality provision, without more, does not constitute good 

cause, let alone a compelling reason, to seal.” Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., 2018 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 34685, at *26 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 16, 2018). 

While these numbers might potentially qualify as trade secrets, the State Defendants have 

not made a sufficient showing to support that conclusion. In the context of commerce, the Ninth 

Circuit has stated “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms....[are] 

information that plainly falls within the definition of ‘trade secrets.’ A ‘trade secret may consist of 

Case 2:20-cv-01585-KES-SKO Document 37 Filed 06/16/21 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

any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and 

which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use 

it.’” Elec. Arts, Inc. v. United States Dist. Court, 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008), quoting 

Restatement of the Law, Torts § 757, cmt. b. The underlying rationale is that “courts have refused 

to permit their files to serve...as sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s 

competitive standing.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). There is no 

assertion that the numbers the State Defendants seek to file under seal affect the Plaintiff Tribe’s 

competitive position and no legal briefing to that effect. The Ninth Circuit has cautioned that 

courts must make their sealing decisions “on the basis of articulable facts known to the court, not 

on the basis of unsupported hypothesis or conjecture.” Valley Broad. Co. v. United States Dist. 

Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1293 (9th Cir. 1986), quoting United States v. Edwards (In re VideoIndiana, Inc.), 672 F.2d 1289, 1294 (7th Cir. 1982). “The mere fact that the production of records 

may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, 

without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179, citing Foltz v. 

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003).

The motion to file under seal (Doc. 36) is DENIED without prejudice. Any renewed 

requests to file under seal must be FILED no later than June 25, 2021. Alternatively, the State 

Defendants may file unredacted or modified versions of the relevant documents by June 30, 2021. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2021 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:20-cv-01585-KES-SKO Document 37 Filed 06/16/21 Page 3 of 3