Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02027/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02027-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lehman Brothers Holdings. Inc.,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

The Lending Company,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12–02027-PHX-PGR 

 ORDER

 

 

Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to File Certain Documents

Under Seal (Doc. 30). The documents at issue are Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 to the

Affidavit of James A. Bloom and Exhibit 4 to the Affidavit of David Johnson, which

were submitted in support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The

documents, which the plaintiff designated as “confidential,” were produced to the

defendant by the plaintiff under the terms of a confidentiality agreement which

prohibits the public filing of documents designated as confidential. 

The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that the party seeking to seal an

attachment to a summary judgment motion bears the burden of overcoming the

strong presumption in favor of public access to judicial records by articulating

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings ... that outweigh the 

Case 2:12-cv-02027-PGR Document 40 Filed 05/09/13 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

1

 The defendant also has not complied with LRCiv 5.6(d), which sets

forth the requirements for filing a document designated as confidential by another

party.

- 2 -

general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Kamakana v.

City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.2006). Although the

defendant does not refer to the proper legal test for sealing summary judgment

attachments1

, the Court finds that the motion should nevertheless be granted due

to the nature of the documents at issue. As described by the defendant, the

documents are properly subject to being sealed because they include various

confidential information about non-party borrowers, such as loan numbers, names,

addresses, and phone numbers, and family health and financial circumstances,

including social security numbers, tax returns, bank account numbers, pay stubs,

and household liabilities. The personal nature of such non-party information

outweighs public policies favoring disclosure.

Also pending before the Court is Defendant’s [Second] Motion to File Certain

Documents Under Seal (Doc. 38), wherein the defendant seeks to file under seal

Exhibit A to its Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment. The exhibit

is an Assignment and Assumption Agreement, which the defendant requests be

sealed solely because it was designated by the plaintiff as confidential under the

terms of the parties’ confidentiality agreement. The Court finds that this motion to

seal should be denied because the defendant has failed to advance any reason for

sealing that satisfies the “compelling reason” standard. The Court will, however,

keep the document under seal for one month to permit the parties to comply with the

requirements of LRCiv 5.6(d). If no properly supported motion to seal is timely filed,

the Court may enter an order making the document part of the public record.

Case 2:12-cv-02027-PGR Document 40 Filed 05/09/13 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

- 3 -

Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to File Certain Documents Under

Seal (Doc. 30) is granted and that the Clerk of the Court shall maintain under seal

Exhibits 2, 3, and 4 to the Affidavit of James A. Bloom and Exhibit 4 to the Affidavit

of David Johnson (Lodged Doc. 31).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s [Second] Motion to File Certain

Documents Under Seal (Doc. 38) is denied without prejudice to a properly supported

motion to seal being filed in accordance with LRCiv 5.6(d) no later than June 10,

2013. The Clerk of the Court shall maintain lodged document 39 under seal until

further order of the Court.

DATED this 8th day of May, 2013.

Case 2:12-cv-02027-PGR Document 40 Filed 05/09/13 Page 3 of 3