Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02543/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02543-0/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

- 1 - 10cv2543

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAROLD HOLMES, an individual, on

his own behalf and on behalf of all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10-CV-2543-H (RBB)

ORDER DENYING

APPLICATION TO FILE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

vs.

NCO Financial Systems, Inc., a

Pennsylvania corporation, AT&T

COMMUNICATIONS OF

CALIFORNIA,

INC., a California corporation, and DOES

1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

On September 19, 2011, Defendant NCO Financial Systems, Inc. (“NCO”) filed a

motion for summary judgment in this case. (Doc. No. 38.) On October 24, 2011, Plaintiff

Harold Holmes filed a motion for leave to file documents under seal in connection with

Plaintiff’s response in opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No.

51.) Plaintiff seeks to seal over 100 pages of documents, including the unredacted version of

the opposition to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the unredacted version of the

Declaration of Ethan Preston in support of the opposition along with exhibit D to the

Declaration, and the Declaration of Crystal Stephens along with accompanying exhibits. (Id.)

For the following reasons, the Court denies the motion to seal.

Case 3:10-cv-02543-H-RBB Document 54 Filed 10/25/11 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 - 10cv2543

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records

and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty of

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc.,

435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Except for documents that are traditionally kept secret, there

is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. “A

party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong

presumption by meeting the compelling reasons standard. That is, the party must articulate

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings, ... that outweigh the general history

of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in

understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations and quotation

marks omitted). The presumed right to access to court proceedings and documents can be

overcome “only by an overriding right or interest ‘based on findings that closure is essential

to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’” Oregonian Publ’g

Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting Press-Enterprise

Co. v. Superior Court, 446 U.S. 501, 510 (1985)). 

“Under the compelling reasons standard, a district court must weigh relevant factors,

base its decision on a compelling reason, and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without

relying on hypothesis or conjecture.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 659 (9th

Cir. 2010) (quotations omitted). “‘Relevant factors’ 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.’” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 659 n.6 (citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th

Cir. 1995)); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (“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.”)

Case 3:10-cv-02543-H-RBB Document 54 Filed 10/25/11 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 - 10cv2543

Plaintiff argues that the documents in question were subject to a Court’s protective

Order and contain information designated as confidential by Defendants. (Doc. No. 51 at 2.)

Plaintiff appears to argue that because the parties agreed to file such information under seal,

good cause exists for the Court to approve Plaintiffs’ request. The Court disagrees. 

Under Rule 26(c), “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party .

. . from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense . . ..” Fed. R. Civ.

P. 26(c). “A party asserting good cause bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks

to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is

granted.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130 (internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). “[B]road

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not

satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir.

1992). To the extent Plaintiff argues that the protective order itself assures that Rule 26(c)

good cause standard is met in this case, the argument is rejected. “[A] party seeking the

protection of the court via a blanket protective order typically does not make a ‘good cause’

showing required by Rule 26(c) with respect to any particular document.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at

1133.

Moreover, Plaintiff’s one-page motion to seal does not identify each exhibit and explain

why any particular statements or portions of the exhibits that may warrant sealing. Even if

good cause existed to seal a portion of the exhibit, sealing the entire exhibit may not be

warranted. Should either party in the future request the sealing of any documents, they must

designate specific portions based on the appropriate showing. Accordingly, the Court denies

Plaintiff’s motion to file documents in support of his opposition to Defendant’s motion for

summary judgment under seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 25, 2011

________________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:10-cv-02543-H-RBB Document 54 Filed 10/25/11 Page 3 of 3