1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 COMPEER FINANCIAL ACA, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00049-JLT-SKO

11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO SEAL AND 12 v. REDACT DOCUMENTS NUNC PRO TUNC 13 MICHAEL GRAHAM, et al., (Doc. 45) 14 Defendants.

15 _____________________________________/

16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 18 On April 10, 2025, Plaintiffs Compeer Financial, ACA; Compeer Financial, PCA; and 19 Compeer Financial, FLCA (collectively “Plaintiffs”), filed their Amended Complaint against 20 Defendants Michael Graham; Cynthia Graham; Dennis Morgan; Kristi Iness; and JD Investments 21 (collectively “Defendants”) alleging theft of funds belonging to Plaintiffs. (Doc. 46.) Plaintiffs 22 also filed an “Notice of Request to Seal and Redact Documents,” that same day. (Doc. 45.) 23 Plaintiffs seek leave to seal Exhibits AA and BB to the Amended Complaint and to redact portions 24 of the Amended Complaint derived from those exhibits. (Id.) The request is unopposed. 25 For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ unopposed request to redact these documents 26 will be granted. 27 II. DISCUSSION 28 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 1 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 2 Honolulu,

, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435

, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Courts in the Ninth Circuit “start with a strong presumption in favor 4 of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 5 2003). Consequently, access to filings and their attachments that are “more than tangentially 6 related to the merits of a case” may be limited only upon a showing of “compelling reasons” for 7 redaction. Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

, 1101–02 (9th Cir. 2016). 8 Filings that are only tangentially related to the merits may be redacted upon a lesser showing of 9 “good cause.”

. Here, because the redaction request concerns exhibit to a pleading, the 10 Court will apply the “compelling reasons” standard. See Pardi v. Tricida, Inc., No. 21-CV-00076- 11 HSG,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2023) (applying the “compelling reasons” 12 standard when considering whether to seal a complaint and collecting cases). 13 Plaintiffs seek to seal Exhibits AA and BB to the Amended Complaint, which are 14 identified as the declarations of Defendants Dennis Morgan and Michael Graham, respectively, 15 and to redact paragraphs ¶¶ 134–138, 140–145, and 152–159 of the Amended Complaint. (Doc. 16 45 at 2. See also Doc. 46 at ¶¶ 134–138, 140–145, and 152–159.) Plaintiffs contend that sealing 17 and/or redaction of this information is appropriate to protect identifying information and sensitive 18 financial information, including personal banking details, of Defendants Michael Graham, Cynthia 19 Graham, and Dennis Morgan, and commercially sensitive information belonging to third parties. 20 (See Doc. 45 at 2.) 21 Courts in this district have routinely granted motions to seal parties’ financial and banking 22 account information and/or the personally identifiable information of third-party individuals under 23 the compelling reasons standard. See, e.g., Jasibel Canchola v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 8:23-CV- 24 00734-FWS-ADS,

, at *5 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2024) (“The court finds compelling 25 reasons to seal this document because it contains financial information and personal identifying 26 information of third parties.”); Soria v. U.S. Bank N.A., No. SACV 17-0060-3CJC(KESx), 2019

, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2019) (“There are compelling reasons to file this 28 information under seal. The public has a minimal interest in the [plaintiff's] bank account 1 numbers . . . or other personal identifying information. Releasing this information may risk 2 exposing [Plaintiff] to identity theft.”); Am. Auto. Ass’n of N. California, Nevada & Utah v. Gen. 3 Motors LLC, Case No. 17-CV-03874-LHK,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2019) 4 (finding that compelling reasons supports the sealing of personally identifiable information of 5 third party individuals, including names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses); Nursing 6 Home Pension Fund v. Oracle Corp., No. C01-00988 MJJ,

, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 7 Nov. 1, 2007) (“The Ninth Circuit has found that compelling reasons exist to keep personal 8 information confidential to protect an individual's privacy interest and to prevent exposure to harm 9 or identity theft.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that compelling reasons exist to seal and/or 10 redact this information. 11 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 12 For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ unopposed request to file Exhibits AA and BB 13 to the Amended Complaint and the unredacted Amended Complaint under seal, and to file the 14 Amended Complaint with redactions at paragraphs ¶¶ 134–138, 140–145, and 152–159, nunc pro 15 tunc, is GRANTED (Doc. 45). 16 By no later than two (2) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs SHALL FILE UNDER 17 SEAL in accordance with E.D. Cal. Local Rules 140(b), (d) and 141: (1) Exhibits AA and BB to 18 the Amended Complaint and (2) the unredacted Amended Complaint. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20

21 Dated: April 15, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22

23 24 25 26 27 28