Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03102/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03102-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark A. Habib
Defendant
James P. McKenna
Defendant
Virginia C. Moon
Counter Defendant
David H. Rush
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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

VIRGINIA C. MOON, on her own

behalf and on behalf of the

Peters Rush Habib & McKenna

401(k) Profit Sharing Plan,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID H. RUSH, MARK A. HABIB,

and JAMES P. MCKENNA,

Defendant.

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM

No. 2:11-cv-03102-GEB-CKD

ORDER DENYING SEALING REQUEST

On August 25, 2014, David H. Rush, Mark A. Habib, and 

James P. McKenna (the “moving parties”) submitted for in camera 

consideration a Request to Seal Documents, their counsel’s 

declaration, a proposed sealing order, and the documents sought 

to be sealed. The documents sought to be sealed are referenced in 

a publicly filed Notice of Request to Seal Documents as “fifteen 

documents and references thereto made in (1) Defendants’ Motion 

for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff’s Complaint . . . and (2) the

Statement of Undisputed Facts in support of both Defendant’s MSJ 

and Counter-Claimant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Not. of 

Req. to Seal 1:4-7, ECF No. 87.) The moving parties “seek an 

order authorizing the filing of [the referenced] documents and 

Case 2:11-cv-03102-GEB-CKD Document 103 Filed 08/29/14 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

cited portions thereof under seal,” arguing “[t]he information 

contained in these documents has been designated as confidential 

pursuant to the Confidentiality Agreement entered into by the 

parties.” (Id. at 4:13-15.) The moving parties further state in 

their Request to Seal Documents: “[t]he confidential information 

includes private information, including financial information, 

which should be protected from disclosure.” (Req. to Seal Docs. 

4:10-11.)

The moving parties neither discuss the applicable 

sealing standard in their Request to Seal Documents, nor 

demonstrate that it has been met. See E.D. Cal. 141(b) (“The 

‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or 

other authority for sealing . . . .”). “[A] party seeking to seal 

a [document] attached to a dispositive motion or one that is 

presented at trial must articulate ‘compelling reasons’ in favor 

of sealing.” Williams v. U.S. Bank Ass’n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 604 

(E.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

[The moving parties] cannot provide the 

compelling reasons necessary to justify the 

wholesale sealing of [the documents sought to 

be sealed] with a few generalized, sweeping 

sentences. They needed (and failed) to 

specifically address why [specific portions 

of the documents] contain[] . . . [“private”] 

information of such a compelling nature as to 

overcome the strong presumption of public 

access.

In re LDK Solar Secs. Litig., No. C 07-05182 WHA, 2010 WL 724809, 

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2010); see also Williams, 290 F.R.D. at 

607 (denying request to seal an exhibit where the moving party 

“failed to identify with any particularity which of the 

Case 2:11-cv-03102-GEB-CKD Document 103 Filed 08/29/14 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

[multiple] pages is actually confidential and needs to be 

sealed,” and “[i]nstead . . . requested the sealing of all . . . 

pages . . . , without regard to the plainly non-confidential 

nature of most of them”).

For the stated reasons, the sealing request is DENIED. 

Since Local Rule 141(e)(1) prescribes that if a sealing 

“[r]equest is denied in full or in part, the Clerk will return to 

the submitting party the documents for which sealing has been 

denied,” the documents emailed to the courtroom deputy clerk for 

judicial in camera consideration are treated as having been 

returned to the moving parties. United States v. Baez–Alcaino, 

718 F. Supp. 1503, 1507 (M.D. Fla. 1989) (indicating that when a 

judge denies a sealing request the party submitting the request 

then decides how to proceed in light of the ruling).

Dated: August 28, 2014

Case 2:11-cv-03102-GEB-CKD Document 103 Filed 08/29/14 Page 3 of 3