Opinion ID: 691389
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: denial of access to court records

Text: Every court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 1312, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978). Thus, the district court's order sealing its records was an exercise of its inherent supervisory power. 5
We review the district court's denial of access to its records for abuse of discretion. Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir.1986).
The State Bar argues that the district court abused its discretion by sealing its file and, thus, denying the State Bar access to the court's records. 6 The Supreme Court acknowledged the existence of a common law right of access to records in civil proceedings: It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents. Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. at 597, 98 S.Ct. at 1312, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (footnotes omitted). At the same time, the Court recognized that this right to inspect and copy judicial records is not absolute. Id. at 598, 98 S.Ct. at 1312. The Court did not endeavor to identify all of the factors to be weighed in determining whether access is appropriate, stating only that courts should consider the interests advanced by the parties in light of the public interest and the duty of the courts. Id. at 602, 98 S.Ct. at 1314. The Court also acknowledged that the decision is one best left to the sound discretion of the trial court, a discretion to be exercised in light of the relevant facts and circumstances of the particular case. Id. at 599, 98 S.Ct. at 1312-13. The Ninth Circuit has adopted the Seventh Circuit's approach for determining whether the common law right of access should be overridden, requiring courts to start with a strong presumption in favor of access. See Valley Broadcasting Co., 798 F.2d 1289. This presumption of access may be overcome only on the basis of articulable facts known to the court, not on the basis of unsupported hypothesis or conjecture. Id. at 1293 (quoting United States v. Edwards, 672 F.2d 1289, 1294 (7th Cir.1982)). 7 The factors relevant to a determination of whether the strong presumption of access is overcome 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. EEOC v. Erection Co., Inc., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir.1990) (citing Valley Broadcasting, 798 F.2d at 1294). After taking all relevant factors into consideration, the district court must base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture. Valley Broadcasting, 798 F.2d at 1295. As we have noted, it is vital for a court clearly to state the basis of its ruling, so as to permit appellate review of whether relevant factors were considered and given appropriate weight. Id. at 1294 (quoting Edwards, 672 F.2d at 1294). We reversed an order to seal court documents and remanded where the district court failed to articulate any reasoning or findings underlying its decision to seal the decree. EEOC v. Erection Co., 900 F.2d at 169. Here, because the district court failed to articulate any reason in support of its sealing order, meaningful appellate review is impossible. 8 Thus, the order sealing the district court's record must be vacated and the matter remanded for the making of findings in support of any order on this issue. This panel will retain jurisdiction over any future appeals in this case. VACATED and REMANDED.