1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN SOLOMON, an Individual, Case No.: 19-CV-1203 JLS (BLM)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 14 FIRST RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE

INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York 15 (ECF No. 25) Corporation, 16 Defendant. 17

18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Stephen Solomon’s Motion to File Under Seal 19 (“Mot.,” ECF No. 25), in which Plaintiff seeks leave to file under seal the entire 20 Administrative Record supporting his anticipated motion for summary judgment. See Mot. 21 at 1–2; see also ECF No. 26. Having carefully considered the Motion, the Administrative 22 Record, and the applicable law, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 23 Motion. 24 LEGAL STANDARD 25 “[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy public 26 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner 27 Commc’ns, Inc.,

(1978). “Unless a particular court record is one 28 ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 1 Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz 2 v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003)). “The presumption 3 of access is ‘based on the need for federal courts, although independent—indeed, 4 particularly because they are independent—to have a measure of accountability and for the 5 public to have confidence in the administration of justice.’” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 6 Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Amodeo,

(2d Cir. 1995)). 8 A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong 9 presumption of access. Foltz,

. The showing required to meet this burden 10 depends upon whether the documents to be sealed relate to a motion that is “more than 11 tangentially related to the merits of the case.” Ctr. for Auto Safety,

. When 12 the underlying motion is more than tangentially related to the merits, the “compelling 13 reasons” standard applies.

at 1096–98. When the underlying motion does not surpass 14 the tangential relevance threshold, the “good cause” standard applies.

15 “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 16 disclosure and justify sealing court records exists when such ‘court files might have 17 become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, 18 promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 19 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Nixon,

). However, “[t]he mere fact that the 20 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure 21 to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.”

(citing 22 Foltz,

). The decision to seal documents is “one best left to the sound 23 discretion of the trial court” upon consideration of “the relevant facts and circumstances of 24 the particular case.” Nixon,

. 25 ANALYSIS 26 Plaintiff seeks to file under seal the entirety of the 1671-page Administrative Record. 27 See Mot. at 1–2; see also ECF No. 26. Given the strong presumption in favor of access to 28 court records, a party seeking to file under seal materials in support of a dispositive motion, 1 such as a motion for summary judgment, must articulate compelling reasons to maintain 2 their confidentiality. See Foltz,

. Under the compelling reasons standard, 3 “the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will 4 result if no [protection] is granted.” Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp.,

, 1210– 5 11 (9th Cir. 2002). “The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s 6 embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, 7 compel the court to seal its records.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz,

). 9 Here, Plaintiff contends that the whole Administrative Record should be filed under 10 seal because it “contains personal and confidential information regarding Plaintiff, such as 11 but not limited to: medical records, contact information, and employment history 12 documentation.” Mot. at 2. Plaintiff further contends that “[n]othing in the Administrative 13 Record is of public interest” and that “[a] redacted version of the Administrative Record is 14 not necessary, as Defendant is already in possession of all documents included in the 15 Administrative Record and no unrelated parties will be named or have interest in 16 possession or viewing the sealed documents.”

17 These arguments—made without citation to legal authority and unsupported by a 18 declaration from Plaintiff articulating the specific prejudice or harm he will suffer should 19 the Administrative Record be filed publicly—fail to overcome the strong presumption in 20 favor of public access to materials supporting dispositive motions. The request is also 21 overbroad, seeking to seal the entirety of the Administrative Record as opposed to only 22 those portions containing confidential information. Because Plaintiff has failed to meet his 23 burden of establishing “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 24 the Administrative Record filed to support his anticipated motion for summary judgment, 25 the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s Motion. 26 CONCLUSION 27 In light of the foregoing, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s 28 Motion (ECF No. 25). Within fourteen (14) days of the electronic docketing of this Order, ] || Plaintiff SHALL FILE a renewed motion to seal that meets the “compelling reasons” 2 || standard, along with an appropriately redacted public version of the Administrative Record, 3 |}OR Plaintiff SHALL FILE the full, unredacted copy of the Administrative Record 4 || previously lodged under seal at ECF No. 26 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 || Dated: June 19, 2020 (een g on. Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28