Carlin et al v. DairyAmerica, Inc. et al

Filing 293

ORDER DENYING plaintiffs' Request to Seal Documents and File Redacted Version or Briefing without Prejudice, document 276 . Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/21/2016. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

FRESNO DIVISION

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL
ROZWADOWSKI and DIANA WOLFE,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DAIRYAMERICA, INC., and CALIFORNIA
DAIRIES, INC.
Defendants

Case No. 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-EPG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS
AND FILE REDACTED VERSION OR
BRIEFING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. 276)

17
18
19
20
21

22

On April 14, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Request to Seal Documents including a
Request to File a Redacted Version of Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of a Motion to
Compel (attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Statement Regarding Discovery Disagreement (“Joint
Statement”)), and Exhibits 1-7 which are attached to the Memorandum.

23
A review of the request reveals that the parties need to further meet and confer and determine
24
what documents and information in the briefing requires redaction and/or sealing. For example,
25
26
27
28

Plaintiffs request that large portions of their Memorandum (Exhibit A to the Joint Statement) be
redacted pursuant to a protective order signed by the parties. However, a review of Defendants’
Memorandum, (attached as Exhibit B to the Joint Statement), reveals that similar information in their

1

briefing is not redacted, and no request has been made to do so. Moreover, similar documents that

2

Plaintiffs have requested be sealed in Exhibits 1-7, attached to their Memorandum, are also attached

3

to Defendants’ Memorandum at Exhibits A-D, and no request to seal these documents have been

4

made by the Defendants.

5

The Court notes that the good cause standard of Rule 26(c) applies to the sealing of

6

documents attached to a non-dispositive motion. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447

7

F.3d 1172, 1179-1180 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court’s initial review of Plaintiff’s request to file a

8

redacted version of the Memorandum does not appear to meet the good cause standard.

9
10
11

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Request to Seal Documents is denied without prejudice. The parties
shall meet and confer and determine what, if any documents needs redaction and sealing, and file the
appropriate notice pursuant to Local Rule 141 no later than April 29, 2016. Only documents that are

12
part of a sealing request shall be sent to the chambers mailbox. Any document that does not require
13
sealing must be filed on the docket in order to be considered by the Court.
14
Relatedly, the Plaintiffs have emailed the Notice of the Motion to Compel to chambers.

15
16
17
18
19

Counsel are directed to Local Rule 251, particularly section (a), which outlines the proper procedures
to be followed to notice and properly file a discovery motion. The Court realizes that some of the
materials e-mailed to chambers were done so as part of the request to seal. However, some of the
materials (i.e., the notice of motion) do not contain sensitive information should have been filed on

20

the docket.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

The parties shall work together to ensure this motion is properly noticed and correctly filed so

2

that the hearing can proceed without delay. Failure to follow Local Rule 251 may result in a delay in

3

hearing this motion. Currently, no motion to compel has been placed on this Court’s calendar

4

because the motion has not been properly noticed on the Court’s docket.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 21, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2