Carlin et al v. DairyAmerica, Inc. et al

Filing 464

ORDER DENYING DairyAmerica, Inc.'s request to seal documents, document 444 . Within 5 days of this order, DairyAmerica shall file either: 1) unredacted copies of its briefs and oppositions referenced in the request to seal; or 2) an amended request to seal with particularized showing consistent with the legal standards and public record already developed regarding these issues. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 8/9/2017. (Rooney, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

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

Case No. 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-EPG
ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS
(Doc. 444)

DAIRYAMERICA, INC., and CALIFORNIA
DAIRIES, INC.
Defendants

16
17

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant DairyAmerica, Inc.’s

18

(“DairyAmerica”) Request to Seal Exhibits A, C, E, and H to the Joint Statement Regarding

19

Parties’ Discovery Disputes and File Redacted Versions (the “Request”) pursuant to Local Rules

20
21

140 and 141. Having considered the Request, papers submitted in support and opposition, and
good cause appearing, the Request is DENIED.

22

“Documents may be sealed only by written order of the Court, upon the showing required

23

by applicable law.” CAED-LR 141. “In the federal judicial system trial and pretrial proceedings

24

are ordinarily to be conducted in public.” Olympic Ref. Co. v. Carter, 332 F.2d 260, 264 (9th Cir.

25

1964) (“The purpose of the federal discovery rules, as pointed out in Hickman v. Taylor, 329

26

U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451, is to force a full disclosure.”) “As a general rule, the

27

public is permitted ‘access to litigation documents and information produced during discovery.’”

28

In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Oregon, 661 F.3d 417, 424 (9th Cir. 2011)

1

(quoting Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir.2002) and citing San Jose

2

Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.1999) (“It is well-

3

established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary,

4

presumptively public.”)).

5

A party requesting to seal documents related to a dispositive motion, such as a motion for

6

summary judgment, must demonstrate “compelling reasons” to overcome the presumption of

7

public access. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1136 (9th Cir. 2003)

8

(explaining once the documents are made part of a dispositive motion, they lose the protected

9

status enjoyed in discovery “without some overriding interests in favor of keeping the discovery

10

documents under seal”). However, the “public policies that support the right of access to

11

dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non-dispositive

12

materials.” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing

13

Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Court requires a

14

“particularized showing” under the “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) to seal discovery

15

material attached to non-dispositive motions. Id. at 1180 (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135, 1138).

16

Here, the parties were granted leave to file briefing on pending discovery disputes. The

17

Court did not contemplate that any portion of the motions to compel or the responses thereto

18

were to be filed under seal. The only reason by given by DairyAmerica to seal their briefs and

19

exhibits --- that the documents may contain or reference information designated by the parties or

20

third parties as “Confidential” --- is too vague to overcome the presumption of public disclosure.

21

The Court is especially skeptical in light of the fact that Plaintiffs briefed their motion for

22

sanctions and responses to DairyAmerica’s discovery disputes without requesting leave to seal or

23

redact documents. Additionally, the Court discussed all pending discovery disputes at length on

24

the public record at the July 26, 2017 hearing, and DairyAmerica did not make a request to seal

25

any portion of the record.

26
27

Accordingly, DairyAmerica’s has not made a particularized showing that good cause
exists to seal the requested documents. The request is DENIED without prejudice.

28
1

1

Within 5 days of this order, DairyAmerica shall file either: 1) unredacted copies of its

2

briefs and oppositions referenced in the request to seal; or 2) an amended request to seal with

3

particularized showing consistent with the legal standards and public record already developed

4

regarding these issues.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 9, 2017

/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