Carlin et al v. DairyAmerica, Inc. et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
GERALD CARLIN, JOHN RAHM, PAUL
ROZWADOWSKI and DIANA WOLFE,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
DAIRYAMERICA, INC., and CALIFORNIA
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
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant DairyAmerica, Inc.’s
(“DairyAmerica”) Amended Request to Seal Exhibits A, C, E, and H to the Joint Statement
Regarding Parties’ Discovery Disputes and File Redacted Versions. (ECF No. 465).
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
The Court incorporates by reference the legal standards applicable to this request as provided in the
August 9, 2017 order.
research, development, or commercial information). Although the Court is not entirely sure why
this information is necessary to resolve the pending discovery disputes, it will permit these
redactions at this time.
The Court does not find sufficient justification for any other redactions. In addition to the
reasons provided in the August 9, 2017 order concerning the Court’s intention regarding briefing
of the pending discovery disputes, the Court finds that the other reasons provided by
DairyAmerica do not provide good cause to grant the request. For instance, it is not sufficient
that documents have been filed under seal previously or that a document should filed under seal
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
and Exhibit 2 were submitted in camera to preserve protection of privilege.” (ECF No. 465, p. 4-
5). The Court is not ordering that in camera submissions be filed, so the request to seal them
when filed is moot.2
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the Amended Request to
Seal as follows:
1. DairyAmerica shall file their briefs and exhibits no later than three (3) days following
2. DairyAmerica may redact information meeting the definition of Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
3. DairyAmerica shall provide a declaration to firstname.lastname@example.org supporting
the sensitive confidential nature of the redacted information within thirty (30) days of
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 15, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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.
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?