Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This bankruptcy appeal is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California as Case No. 3:26-cv-03558-JLS-DDL (Document 18, filed October 15, 2026), with Bankruptcy No. 24-2202-CL11. The caption identifies Jane CC Roe SD, by and through her guardian ad litem Lisa Todd, as Creditor/Appellant, and The Roman Catholic Bishop of SD as Debtor/Appellee. As the court noted in its October 6, 2026 order (ECF No. 15), the case is an appeal from bankruptcy court. The October 15, 2026 order decides only the Debtor's Motion to Accept Supplement to Record Under Seal (ECF No. 13); it does not resolve the appeal or the underlying claims.
The court explained that the underlying claims arise from alleged sexual abuse, breach of contract, elder abuse, and promissory estoppel; those matters appear as background allegations, not findings in this order. The Debtor had previously obtained permission to file documents under seal based on a bankruptcy court order protecting the names and personal information of alleged victims and other related parties (ECF Nos. 11, 15). The present motion sought to file under seal the Reply to Opposition to Objection to Claim No. 20669 and Duplicated Claim No. 20670, the claims at issue in the appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion without prejudice. It began with the general right to inspect and copy public records, including judicial records, citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, and the strong presumption in favor of access recognized in Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu unless a record is traditionally kept secret. Because the party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming that presumption, and because the supplemental document was offered in support of the Debtor's Brief in Opposition to the appeal—more than tangentially related to the merits—the court applied the compelling-reasons standard of Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group rather than the good-cause standard.
Under that standard, the Debtor had to show specific prejudice or harm that would result from disclosure, as Phillips v. General Motors Corp. requires. The court found that the Debtor had not explained why the Reply brief supported the Brief in Opposition or what compelling reason justified confidentiality. Although it was likely the reasons related to protecting the personal information of victims and other parties, the court declined to provide a sua sponte justification on the Debtor's behalf. The court also noted that the mere existence of a protective order, without more, does not satisfy the compelling-reasons standard under Foltz.
The denial therefore rested on an insufficient showing, not a determination that confidentiality could never be justified. The court invited a renewed motion that carefully identifies what information meets the compelling-reasons standard and makes a specific showing of those reasons, and it cautioned that it is not inclined to seal entire documents unless the moving party makes the requisite showing as to every portion, leaving open a more targeted and adequately supported sealing request.
Key Takeaways
- The court denied ECF No. 13 without prejudice, so the ruling did not resolve the bankruptcy appeal or foreclose a renewed sealing request.
- Because the supplemental document supported the Debtor's opposition to the appeal, the court applied the compelling-reasons standard for sealing judicial records rather than the good-cause standard.
- The motion failed because the Debtor did not explain the reply brief's relationship to the opposition or identify specific harm supporting confidentiality.
- The court would not supply a sealing justification sua sponte merely because protecting personal information appeared likely, and a protective order alone was insufficient.
- Any renewed request must make a specific compelling-reasons showing, and sealing an entire document requires justification for every portion of it.
Why It Matters
The order applies public-access principles to a supplemental record in a bankruptcy appeal while recognizing the sensitive privacy context surrounding the underlying allegations. Its immediate consequence is procedural: the proposed sealed supplement was not accepted on the showing made, but the Debtor may renew its request with particularized support, and the merits of the appeal and the claim objections remain undecided.
The decision also provides practical guidance on the scope of any renewed request. A party cannot rely solely on an existing protective order or on the court's assumption that privacy concerns probably exist, and wholesale sealing requires a showing covering every portion of the document. The ruling thus reinforces that the burden of justifying secrecy rests on the moving party, not the court.