Tan v. Konnektive Rewards, LLC, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California denied Plaintiff Leanne Tan’s motions to seal documents related to defendants’ spoliation-sanctions motion and her perjury-related terminating-sanctions motion. The court held that the compelling-reasons standard applied and that defendants had not shown specific, compelling reasons or narrowly tailored requests for sealing. The court ordered public filing of unredacted documents within seven days and established procedures for future motions to seal confidentially designated materials.

Holdings

1. The compelling-reasons standard applies because both the spoliation motion and the perjury motion are more than tangentially related to the merits of the case; the perjury motion is also dispositive.
2. Defendants failed to demonstrate compelling reasons to seal Plaintiff's opposition to the spoliation motion, the specified exhibits, Plaintiff's perjury motion, and the specified exhibits.
3. A contractual obligation to maintain information confidential, and the fact that information is financial or commercially sensitive, do not by themselves establish compelling reasons to seal judicial records.
4. The parties' requests to seal documents in their entirety were independently improper because they were not narrowly tailored to remove only material warranting secrecy.
5. For future motions to seal documents designated confidential by another party, the moving party must provide at least 36 hours' notice of the motion and documents; the designating party must identify within 24 hours any documents for which confidentiality is withdrawn; and the motion must include counsel's statement that the procedures were followed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the documents submitted in connection with the spoliation and perjury sanctions motions were subject to the compelling-reasons standard for sealing.
2. Whether Defendants demonstrated compelling reasons supported by specific facts to overcome the public's right of access to the requested judicial records.
3. Whether the sealing requests were narrowly tailored to protect only information warranting secrecy.
4. What procedures the parties must follow for future motions to seal documents designated confidential by another party.

Disposition

denied