Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02649/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02649-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kimberly Isom
Plaintiff
JDA Software Incorporated
Defendant

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Kimberly Isom, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JDA Software Incorporated, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-02649-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Exceed Page Limit 

re: Response to Summary Judgment Motion (Doc. 94) and Plaintiff’s Motion to File 

Exhibits Under Seal (Doc. 97). The Court now rules on the motions. 

I. Motion to Exceed Page Limit

 Plaintiff asks for an eight-page extension of the page limit for her response to 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 94 at 1). The Court previously granted 

a similar request to Defendant, and Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s present request. 

See (Doc. 89; Doc. 94 at 1). The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request. 

II. Motion to File Under Seal

 Plaintiff moves to file under seal an exhibit (“Plaintiff’s Dep. Exh. 67”) referenced 

in her controverting statement of facts as well as her response to Defendant’s motion for 

summary judgment. (Doc. 97 at 1). Plaintiff and Defendant have conferred concerning 

this exhibit and have “determined that the Exhibit could not be filed in redacted form, in 

a manner which would preserve the usefulness of the document, while protecting 

Defendant’s interest in protecting confidential information.” (Id. at 1-2). Thus, Plaintiff 

Case 2:12-cv-02649-JAT Document 99 Filed 10/24/14 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

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 

requests that the Court permit her to file this exhibit under seal. 

 Although the Court commends the parties for narrowly tailoring their requests to 

seal, and the exhibit may well contain “confidential” information, Plaintiff must establish 

a record demonstrating why sealing is appropriate, as the following case law illustrates: 

A. Legal Standard 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (“Ninth Circuit”) has recognized “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). The public has a general right of access “to inspect 

and copy . . . judicial records and documents,” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 

U.S. 589, 597 (1978), which “extends to pretrial documents filed in civil cases.” Foltz, 

331 F.3d at 1134. The only exceptions are those documents that have “traditionally been 

kept secret for important policy reasons,” namely grand jury transcript and certain 

warrant materials. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 

Cir. 2006). 

 Because of the strong presumption in favor of access to court records, a party 

seeking to seal a judicial record “bears the burden of overcoming this strong presumption 

by meeting the ‘compelling reasons’ standard.” Id. That 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.” Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and citations 

omitted). A court deciding to seal judicial records must “base its decision on a 

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

hypothesis or conjecture.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 

1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). 

 “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.” Id.

Case 2:12-cv-02649-JAT Document 99 Filed 10/24/14 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

(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. 

 Accordingly, a party’s allegations that material is “confidential” or “business 

information” are insufficient to justify sealing court records containing such material 

unless the party proves the existence of compelling reasons such as those set forth in 

Kamakana. Krause v. Nev. Mut. Ins. Co., 2013 WL 3776146, at *5 (D. Nev. July 16, 

2013) (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). Moreover, because “confidentiality alone 

does not transform business information into a trade secret,” a party alleging trade secret 

protection as a basis for sealing court records must show that the business information is 

in fact a trade secret. St. Clair v. Nellcor Puritan Bennett LLC, 2011 WL 5335559, at *2 

(D. Ariz. Nov. 7, 2011). Thus, only in limited circumstances will confidential information 

actually merit the sealing of court records. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182 (finding that 

conclusory statements about the content of documents did not provide “compelling 

reasons sufficiently specific to bar the public access to the documents”). 

B. Analysis

 Because Plaintiff did not articulate specific reasons why the exhibit at issue should 

be sealed under Ninth Circuit law, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion without 

prejudice. The lodged sealed exhibit shall remain lodged under seal; Plaintiff may file a 

new motion to seal without needing to lodge the exhibit a second time. 

III. Conclusion

 For the foregoing reasons, 

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Exceed Page Limit 

re: Response to Summary Judgment Motion (Doc. 94). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall file into the record 

Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, 

currently lodged at Doc. 95. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Case 2:12-cv-02649-JAT Document 99 Filed 10/24/14 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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 

File Exhibits Under Seal (Doc. 97). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a new motion to seal within 

seven days of the date of this Order. 

 Dated this 24th day of October, 2014. 

Case 2:12-cv-02649-JAT Document 99 Filed 10/24/14 Page 4 of 4