Carlin et al v. DairyAmerica, Inc. et al

Filing 467

ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Amended Request to Seal Exhibits to the Joint Statement Regarding Parties' Discovery Disputes and File Redacted Versions 465 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 08/15/2017. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 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 15 16 Case No. 1:09-cv-00430-AWI-EPG ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART AMENDED REQUEST TO SEAL EXHIBITS TO THE JOINT STATEMENT REGARDING PARTIES’ DISCOVERY DISPUTES AND FILE REDACTED VERSIONS (Doc. 465) This matter comes before the Court on Defendant DairyAmerica, Inc.’s 17 (“DairyAmerica”) Amended Request to Seal Exhibits A, C, E, and H to the Joint Statement 18 Regarding Parties’ Discovery Disputes and File Redacted Versions. (ECF No. 465). 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 On August 9, 2017, the Court denied a prior request to seal these same documents, and found that DairyAmerica failed to make a particularized showing that good cause exists to seal the requested documents.1 (ECF No. 464). DairyAmerica filed the instant amended request on August 11, 2017. Having considered the Amended Request (ECF No. 465), papers submitted in support and opposition, and good cause appearing, the Request is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The Court finds good cause for redactions to information meeting the definition of Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (i.e. trade secrets or other confidential 27 28 1 The Court incorporates by reference the legal standards applicable to this request as provided in the August 9, 2017 order. 1 research, development, or commercial information). Although the Court is not entirely sure why 2 this information is necessary to resolve the pending discovery disputes, it will permit these 3 redactions at this time. 4 The Court does not find sufficient justification for any other redactions. In addition to the 5 reasons provided in the August 9, 2017 order concerning the Court’s intention regarding briefing 6 of the pending discovery disputes, the Court finds that the other reasons provided by 7 DairyAmerica do not provide good cause to grant the request. For instance, it is not sufficient 8 that documents have been filed under seal previously or that a document should filed under seal 9 because it has been marked as confidential by a party or third-party. The Court also notes that DairyAmerica submitted “a portion of the English Declaration 10 11 and Exhibit 2 were submitted in camera to preserve protection of privilege.” (ECF No. 465, p. 4- 12 5). The Court is not ordering that in camera submissions be filed, so the request to seal them 13 when filed is moot.2 14 15 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Amended Request to Seal as follows: 16 1. DairyAmerica shall file their briefs and exhibits no later than three (3) days following 17 this order; 18 2. DairyAmerica may redact information meeting the definition of Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of 19 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 20 3. DairyAmerica shall provide a declaration to supporting 21 the sensitive confidential nature of the redacted information within thirty (30) days of 22 this order. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 15, 2017 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 2 That said, the Court never solicited or agreed to consider material in camera regarding this motion, and does not agree to consider such material in its decision. 1

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?