Weddle v. CFA Institute

Background

CFA Institute filed two letter motions asking the court to seal documents, ECF Nos. 34 and 37. The order concerns only those sealing requests.

Legal Standard

The court stated that the public generally has a right to inspect and copy judicial records. A document is a “judicial document” when it is relevant to the court’s work and useful in the judicial process. If a document qualifies, a common-law presumption of public access applies.

The court must weigh the strength of that presumption against competing interests, such as privacy interests and the protection of sensitive, confidential, or proprietary business information. Sealing is permitted only when specific findings show that it is necessary to protect higher values and the sealing is narrowly tailored. A protective order or other agreement to keep information confidential does not by itself overcome the public-access presumption.

Court’s Ruling

The court found that CFA Institute had not sufficiently analyzed or applied the governing sealing standard. It also found that CFA Institute had not followed the sealing procedure in Judge Torres’s Individual Practices, including the requirement to file an unredacted document under seal with proposed redactions highlighted.

Accordingly, Judge Analisa Torres denied CFA Institute’s letter motions, ECF Nos. 34 and 37, without prejudice to renewal. If CFA Institute renews its requests, it must identify the material it seeks to seal or redact with particularity and explain for each proposed redaction whether the material is a judicial document, the strength of any public-access presumption, the privacy interests said to outweigh that presumption, and why the proposed redaction is narrowly tailored. The court also directed CFA Institute to comply strictly with the Individual Practices. The clerk was directed to terminate the two motions.