## Facts

- The Archdiocese filed Chapter 11 while facing many tort claims alleging clergy sexual abuse.
- Tort claimants sought broad discovery, including personnel files for 37 priests identified by the Archdiocese for a national study, to support claims of institutional pattern or practice.
- The bankruptcy court compelled production and entered a stipulated protective order allowing disclosure unless a party or affected priest showed “good cause” to continue confidentiality under Rule 26(c).
- Personnel files for two priests (Father M and Father D) were produced even though neither was sued; their files contained allegations of past sexual abuse.
- Portions of discovery materials were later filed with the bankruptcy court during motion practice and mediation-related proceedings.
- After settlements, tort claimants sought public disclosure of the discovery materials; Fathers M and D moved to continue the protective order and to prevent public access to court-filed materials, citing privacy and reputational harm.
- The bankruptcy court denied continued protection, finding public interest outweighed privacy under Rule 26(c) and that the materials were not protectable as “scandalous” under 11 U.S.C. § 107(b).
- The district court affirmed; Fathers M and D appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion under Rule 26(c) by refusing to continue confidentiality protections for nonparty priests’ discovery materials without adequately weighing their privacy interests and considering less restrictive measures.
2. Whether documents filed in the bankruptcy case had to be protected from public access under 11 U.S.C. § 107(b) as “scandalous or defamatory matter.”

## Decision

- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- Rule 26(c): The court rejected any presumption of “good cause” based solely on nonparty status but held the bankruptcy court erred by not conducting a sufficiently tailored balancing and not considering less restrictive alternatives (including protection of the priests’ identity).
- § 107: The court affirmed that the filed materials were not “scandalous or defamatory” within § 107(b) and therefore remained subject to the general rule of public access, while permitting redaction of identifying information.

## Legal Principles

- Under Rule 26(c), the moving party must show “good cause” through specific, articulated harm; embarrassment alone is insufficient.
- Nonparty status does not create a categorical presumption of good cause, though it can strengthen privacy interests in the case-specific balancing.
- Courts applying Rule 26(c) must consider tailored, less restrictive protections (e.g., redaction of identifying information) before allowing broader disclosure.
- Under 11 U.S.C. § 107(a), bankruptcy filings are presumptively open to public inspection; § 107(b) exceptions are narrow.
- “Scandalous or defamatory” matter under § 107(b) does not include relevant allegations simply because they are damaging; relevance and the absence of findings of falsity weigh against sealing.
- Redaction can mitigate privacy harm while preserving public access to information relevant to judicial proceedings.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit required a more tailored Rule 26(c) analysis that accounts for nonparty priests’ privacy interests and considers redaction and other limited protections, but it upheld public access to bankruptcy court filings under § 107 because the materials were relevant and not “scandalous” within the statutory exception.


In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or., 661 F.3d 417 (9th Cir. 2011)