Lesnik v.Eisenmann SE
- Beth Freeman
- 5:16-cv-01120
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE, Judge Koh granted plaintiffs’ motion to seal exhibits supporting default-judgment motions because the court had not relied on them.
The plaintiffs’ exhibits supporting their default-judgment motions remain under seal; any future sealing requests will require additional declarations and item-by-item review.
What happened
In Lesnik v. Eisenmann SE, the plaintiffs asked to seal certain exhibits filed with three motions for default judgment. The defendants had designated the exhibits confidential under a protective order.
The court applied the stricter standard for sealing records connected to a motion that is closely related to the case’s claims. It explained that the public’s interest in the exhibits was minimal because the court had not relied on the information when it denied the default-judgment motions without prejudice.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal and ordered that the provisionally sealed documents remain sealed. Judge Koh stated that any renewed request to seal information in refiled default-judgment motions would require supporting declarations from the defendants and a careful review of each item.
The detailed version
- Lesnik v.Eisenmann SE · No. 5:16-cv-01120
- Beth Freeman
- Feb. 12, 2021
Background
The plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to seal certain exhibits submitted with three motions for default judgment. The exhibits had been designated confidential by the defendants under the parties’ stipulated protective order.
Legal standard
The court explained that judicial records generally carry a strong presumption of public access. For records more than tangentially related to the merits of a case, the party seeking to seal them must show compelling reasons supported by specific facts that outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure. The court also described a less demanding good-cause standard for filings only tangentially related to the merits. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), protection may include confidential commercial information or trade secrets. Sealing requests must also comply with the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rule 79-5, including requirements that requests be narrowly tailored and identify the material to be sealed.
Ruling
The court determined that exhibits supporting motions for default judgment are more than tangentially related to the underlying claims because default judgment is case-dispositive. The court therefore applied the compelling-reasons standard. It noted, however, that on February 10, 2021, it had denied the plaintiffs’ default-judgment motions without prejudice and instructed them to refile to correct deficiencies. The court had not relied on any information the parties sought to seal when denying those motions, so it found that the public interest in accessing that information was minimal.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ administrative motion to seal. Documents provisionally filed under seal at the identified docket entry were to remain under seal. The court added that if the plaintiffs refiled their default-judgment motions and again sought to seal information, the defendants would have to file declarations establishing that all designated material was sealable under Ninth Circuit law. The court said it would then review each item separately.
Disposition
The administrative motion to seal was granted. The order did not decide the plaintiffs’ underlying claims or the merits of their default-judgment motions.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.