Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services
- Beth Freeman
- 5:18-cv-05623
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services, Judge Freeman denied without prejudice Intero’s motion to seal because it failed to follow local rules.
Intero’s request to keep part of Exhibit B from public view was denied without prejudice, leaving it able to file a compliant sealing motion.
What happened
In Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services, Intero asked to seal part of an exhibit filed with a supplemental declaration.
Intero relied on a non-party’s designation of the exhibit as confidential under a protective order. The court said that designation alone did not justify sealing the material.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman denied the motion without prejudice because Intero did not comply with the district’s sealing rules. The court said Intero could file another motion that follows those rules and the court’s standing orders.
The detailed version
- Chinitz v. Intero Real Estate Services · No. 5:18-cv-05623
- Beth Freeman
- Mar. 18, 2021
Background
Defendant Intero Real Estate Services moved to file under seal part of Exhibit B to the Supplemental Declaration of Craig L. Davis. Intero’s stated reason was that non-party LexisNexis had marked the exhibit “CONFIDENTIAL” under the protective order in the case.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that judicial records generally are available for public inspection and copying. Materials more than tangentially related to the merits of a case may be sealed only for compelling reasons, while materials only tangentially related to the merits may be sealed upon a showing of good cause. Sealing requests also must be narrowly tailored and comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).
That rule requires the submitting party to provide a narrowly tailored proposed order identifying each document or portion to be sealed in a table and a declaration establishing that the identified material is sealable. The court stated that referring to a confidentiality designation under a protective order is not enough.
Ruling
Because Intero did not comply with the district’s local rules, the court denied the motion without prejudice. The court stated that any re-filed motion must comply with both the local rules and the court’s standing orders regarding sealing motions. The order did not decide the underlying merits of the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.