Aron M. Oliner, of the Kontrabecki Grp. LP v. Kontrabecki
Decision Date | 20 March 2014 |
Docket Number | No. 12–15107.,12–15107. |
Parties | Aron M. OLINER, as Chapter 11 Trustee of the Kontrabecki Group LP; Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. John KONTRABECKI, Defendant–Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Robert R. Moore and Michael J. Betz, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant–Appellant.
Peter J. Benvenutti, Jones Day, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff–Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Charles R. Breyer, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:04–mc–00010–CRB.
Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE, M. MARGARET McKEOWN, and RONALD M. GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This case relates to a sealed record request arising from a bankruptcy proceeding that ultimately settled. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties agreed to seek permission to file under seal all documents relating to the bankruptcy proceedings and all related district court and court of appeals proceedings. The parties represent that the bankruptcy proceedings have been sealed.
John Kontrabecki brings this unopposed appeal from the district court's order denying the parties' joint request to seal the entire record of proceedings before the district court. Specifically, the parties seek to seal the record of proceedings on an interlocutory appeal taken from the bankruptcy court, which the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 305 B.R. 510, 523, 529 (N.D.Cal.2004), aff'd,158 Fed.Appx. 1, 2–3 (9th Cir.2005). We have jurisdiction because an order denying a motion to unseal or seal documents “is appealable either as a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or as a collateral order.” Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.2003). We review for abuse of discretion the district court's decision not to seal the judicial record and affirm. See Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 n. 3 (9th Cir.2006).
Historically, courts have “recognize[d] a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597, 98 S.Ct. 1306, 55 L.Ed.2d 570 (1978) (footnote omitted). Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. F.T.C., 710 F.2d 1165, 1177 (6th Cir.1983) (internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). Accordingly, “[u]nless a particular court record is one traditionally kept secret, a strong presumption in favor of access is the starting point.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (internal quotation marks omitted). In keeping with the strong public policy favoring access to court records, most judicial records may be sealed only if the court finds “compelling reasons.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–78 (9th Cir.2010) (amended opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Perez–Guerrero v. U.S. Att'y. Gen., 717 F.3d 1224, 1235 (11th Cir.2013) , cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1000, 187 L.Ed.2d 850 (2014). However, a less exacting “good cause” standard “applies to private materials unearthed during discovery,” and to “previously sealed discovery attached to a nondispositive motion.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court rejected the parties' argument that the “good cause” standard applied. It held that the “compelling reasons” standard governed the decision whether to seal the record of the proceedings because “the parties wish[ed] to seal the entire record of the appeal ... [, which is] in fact, the entire judicial record.”
On appeal, Kontrabecki argues that the interlocutory appeal should be analyzed as a nondispositive motion subject to the “good cause” standard because in deciding the appeal, the district court “made no determination of a particular claim on the merits, nor did it eliminate such a claim from the case.” As the district court rightly pointed out, “it is rather disingenuous to characterize it as a ‘non-dispositive order’ ” because “[t]he parties are requesting the sealing of the court record itself, including motions and the [district court's] opinion.” See Miller v. Ind. Hosp., 16 F.3d 549, 551 (3d Cir.1994) ( ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC
...to unseal or seal documents is appealable either as a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or as a collateral order." Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir.2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).III. ANALYSISA. Standard to File Documents Under Seal"It is clear tha......
-
United States v. Index Newspapers LLC
...because such an order “is appealable either as a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or as a collateral order.” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir.2014) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted). ......
-
Brennan v. Opus Bank
...we typically “review for abuse of discretion the district court's decision not to seal the judicial record,” Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir.2014), here we review de novo because “the district court failed to exercise its discretion” by “denying as moot the bulk of [Opus......
-
Newberry v. McGillis-Hiner
...... Cir. 2016); Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024,. 1025‒27 (9th Cir. ......
-
'Oliner v. Kontrabecki': The 9th Circuit Reminds Parties Of The Potential Risks Of Filing Sensitive Documents Under Seal In Court
...recent decision of Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2014) highlights the potential risks of filing sensitive documents under seal in court. In Oliner, the parties agreed to seal all documents related to the proceedings in order to avoid embarrassment, annoyance and a negative ......
-
No Seal No Deal: Amending Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 to Require Judicial Approval of Settlement Agreements
...with respect to scandalous or defamatory matter contained in a paper filed in a case under this title.").15. See Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F.3d 1024, 1025 (9th Cir. 2014); Neal v. Kan. City Star, 461 F.3d 1048 (8th Cir. 2006); Legal Newsline v. Garlock Sealing Tech. LLC, No. 3:13-CV-00464-......