1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL Case No.: 3:18-cv-02000-AJB-AHG PLANNING, INC. a California 12 corporation, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 Plaintiff, PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO SEAL

14 v.

15 HELIX ENVIRONMENTAL AND (Doc. No. 94.) STRATEGIC SOLUTIONS, a California 16 corporation; and IVAN DEAN MYERS, 17 an individual., Defendant. 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff Helix Environmental Planning, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) 20 motion to seal Exhibit B to the November 17, 2020 Declaration of Gary L. Eastman. (Doc. 21 No. 94.) Exhibit B is a confidential settlement agreement filed in connection with 22 Plaintiff’s motion to enforce settlement agreement. (Id.) There is no opposition to 23 Plaintiff’s motion to seal. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT 24 PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s motion. 25 I. LEGAL STANDARD 26 The Court recognizes a “general right to inspect and copy public records and 27 documents, including judicial records and documents,” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 28 1 435 U.S. 589, 597, n.7 (1978), and a strong presumption of public access to the court’s 2 files, Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Where 3 the moving party seeks to seal a dispositive motion and any attached documents, the 4 presumption in favor of disclosure may be overcome if the moving party presents a 5 “compelling reason” to seal. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. On the other hand, there is a 6 weaker public interest in non-dispositive materials; accordingly, where the moving party 7 seeks to seal documents filed in connection with a non-dispositive motion, the moving 8 party need only show “good cause.” See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 9 (9th Cir. 2010). 10 The “compelling reasons” standard applies to the motion to enforce settlement 11 agreement because granting that motion would “serve as a substitute for trial” and dispose 12 of this proceeding. See Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135–36 13 (9th Cir. 2003); Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1098 (9th Cir. 14 2016), cert. denied sub nom. FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety, 137 S. Ct. 38 (2016) 15 (rejecting argument that compelling reasons standard applies only to motions that are 16 “literally dispositive,” and finding it also applies to motions that go “to the heart of the 17 case,” or that are “more than tangentially related to the underlying cause of action”). 18 In general, a “compelling reason” is sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in 19 disclosure and to justify sealing a court record when the court files might become a vehicle 20 for improper purposes, such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public 21 scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 22 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598); see also Pintos, 605 F.3d at 679 n.6. That the 23 production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure 24 to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records. See 25 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135). 26 II. DISCUSSION 27 Plaintiff fails to specifically address how the terms of the settlement agreement 28 | meets the standards for sealing. See Kamakana, 447 F. 3d at 1179; see also Apple, Inc. v. 2 Samsung Elecs. Co., 2012 WL 59886570, at *1 (N.D. Ca. Nov. 29, 2012). While courts in 3 Ninth Circuit have accepted private confidentiality agreements as “good cause” 4 justification for sealing non-dispositive motions and ancillary documents, see, e.g., 5 Skokomish Indian Tribe v. Goldmark, No. C13-5071JLR, 2013 WL 6086075, at *2 (W.D. 6 |! Wash. Nov. 19, 2013), the mere fact that the parties’ settlement agreement may contain a 7 confidentiality provision, without more, does not constitute a compelling reason to seal the 8 || information. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1137-38; see also Select Portfolio Servicing v. ? Valentino, No. C 12-0334 SI, 2013 WL 1800039, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013) (“That 10 [the parties] agreed among themselves to keep the settlement details private, without more, 11 || is no reason to shield the information from . . . the public at large.”). The Court thus finds 12 || this basis insufficient to justify sealing alone. 13 CONCLUSION 14 Plaintiffs conclusory statement that the agreement contains a confidentiality clause, 13 || without more, does not “rise to the level of ‘compelling reasons’ sufficiently specific to bar 16 public access to the documents.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178; see also Scientific 17 || Games Corporation v. AGS LLC, 2017 WL 1228412, at *2 (D. Nev. April 3, 2017). 18 || Further, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that the request to seal is narrowly tailored and fails 19 |) to address whether redaction, rather than sealing, is appropriate. 20 As such, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion to seal WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 21 || Plaintiff may file a renewed motion to seal, and proposed order, addressing the deficiencies 22 || noted in this order by January 20, 2021. Exhibit B will remain temporarily sealed until a 23 || determination on any renewed motion is reached. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 96 || Dated: January 12, 2021 , 27 Hon, Anthony J Heatia 98 United States District Judge

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