Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01956/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01956-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bonneville International Corporation
Defendant
Grant Napear
Plaintiff

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANT NAPEAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

BONNEVILLE INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

No. 2:21-cv-01956-DAD-SCR

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST TO SEAL

(Doc. No. 79)

On May 29, 2024, defendant filed a notice of its request to seal Exhibit 1 to the 

declaration of Steve Cottingim in support of its motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 79.) In 

its request, defendant explains that there are “compelling reasons” to seal the exhibit sufficient to 

outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure of court records because Exhibit 1 consists of the 

employment agreement between defendant and plaintiff, which contains “information regarding 

Bonneville’s employment policies and its salary, bonus, and benefits structure” and “information 

regarding Mr. Napear’s specific salary and compensation when he was employed by” defendant. 

(Id. at 2.) Plaintiff did not file any opposition to defendant’s request to seal. For the reasons 

explained below, defendant’s request will be denied.

/////

/////

Case 2:21-cv-01956-DAD-SCR Document 94 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 5
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

LEGAL STANDARD

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) (“It is well-established that the fruits

of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”). 

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

documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. 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)).1

Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010).

[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, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 

1135–36 (9th Cir. 2003)). The reason for these two different standards is that “[n]ondispositive 

motions are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action, and, as 

a result, the public’s interest in accessing dispositive materials does not apply with equal force to 

non-dispositive materials.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Under the “compelling reasons” standard applicable to dispositive motions, such as a 

motion for summary judgment:

[T]he court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of 

the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 

secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling 

reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying 

on hypothesis or conjecture.

1

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(d), a court “may order that a filing be made 

under seal without redaction.” However, even if a court permits such a filing, it may “later unseal 

the filing or order the person who made the filing to file a redacted version for the public record.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d).

Case 2:21-cv-01956-DAD-SCR Document 94 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 5
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

Id. at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The party seeking to seal a

judicial record bears the burden of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178.

While the terms “dispositive” and “non-dispositive” motions are often used in this 

context, the Ninth Circuit has clarified that the “compelling reasons” standard applies whenever 

the motion at issue “is more than tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety 

v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). The court agrees with defendant that 

the “compelling reasons” standard applies here. (See Doc. No. 79 at 2.)

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist when 

such ‘court files might . . . 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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “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. Finally, “[t]he 

‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were 

previously filed under seal or protective order.” Id. at 1178–79.

ANALYSIS

Defendant’s argument in its request to seal, in its entirety, is as follows:

Exhibit 1 to the Cottingim Declaration consists of the employment 

agreement between Bonneville and plaintiff Grant Napear, effective 

August 1, 2019 (“Employment Agreement”). The Employment 

Agreement contains competitively sensitive information, such as 

information regarding Bonneville’s employment policies and its 

salary, bonus, and benefits structure. It also includes information 

regarding Mr. Napear’s specific salary and compensation when he 

was employed by Bonneville. Bonneville believes that the release 

of such information might cause it competitive harm, which is not 

outweighed by the public interest in general access to judicial 

records. Thus, Exhibit 1 to the Cottingim Declaration should be 

sealed.

(Doc. No. 79 at 2.) While the court recognizes the potentially sensitive nature of information 

within the Employment Agreement, the court finds that defendant has failed to meet its burden of 

articulating compelling reasons that justify sealing Exhibit 1 to the Cottingim Declaration in its 

entirety. See Yates v. Cheeseburger Restaurants, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-01081-DAD-DB, 2023 WL 

Case 2:21-cv-01956-DAD-SCR Document 94 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 5
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

4

4747431, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 25, 2023) (noting that “blanket sealing of an entire . . . document is 

generally inappropriate where only certain portions of the [document] are subject to sealing”). 

The court fails to see why seemingly innocuous portions of the Employment Agreement, such as 

the term of employment or the signature page, should be sealed when it appears that redacting the 

sensitive terms, such as salary, bonuses, and benefits, may suffice. See United States v. Univ. of 

S. California, No. 2:18-cv-08311-WLH-AS, 2024 WL 4467586, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2024)

(noting that the court previously declined to seal letters of employment between USC and 

physicians in their entirety before granting the defendant’s renewed application to seal “the 

redacted portions of the letters . . . because they contain ‘personally identifiable information’

including salaries, stipends, and tenure track status”); Brown v. Brown, No. 13-cv-03318-SI, 2013 

WL 12400041, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 30, 2013) (finding the defendant’s request to seal 

information about “salary, stock options, bonuses, consulting fees, severance, and equity 

interests” were narrowly tailored given that the redactions “remove only the confidential 

information”); see also Roadrunner Intermodal Servs., LLC v. T.G.S. Transportation, Inc., No. 

1:17-cv-01056-DAD-BAM, 2018 WL 432654, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2018) (finding that 

“public release of [] salary information could harm [the defendant’s] competitive standing” and 

accordingly granting the defendant’s request to redact “information reflecting the salaries paid to 

its employees”); Pryor v. City of Clearlake, No. 11-cv-00954-CW, 2012 WL 3276992, at *5 

(N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2012) (ordering documents pertaining to a defendant’s appointment as a police 

officer to be filed with redactions regarding the officer’s address, birthdate, and pay). In light of 

defendant’s insufficient showing justifying its broad request, defendant’s request to file under seal 

Exhibit 1 to the Cottingim Declaration in its entirety will be denied. See Perimeter Solutions, 

L.P. v. Fortress North America, L.L.C., No. 2:24-cv-01276-DAD-CSK, 2024 WL 3967472, at *3

(E.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2024) (denying the plaintiff’s request to file an employment agreement under 

seal without prejudice to renewal based upon an appropriate showing).

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:21-cv-01956-DAD-SCR Document 94 Filed 12/23/24 Page 4 of 5
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

5

CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained above, defendant’s request to seal (Doc. No. 79) is denied, 

without prejudice to a more narrowly tailored renewal based upon an appropriate showing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 20, 2024 

DALE A. DROZD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:21-cv-01956-DAD-SCR Document 94 Filed 12/23/24 Page 5 of 5