Arredondo, et al. vs. Delano Farms Company, et al.
Filing
148
ORDER On Plaintiff's Request To Seal Documents (Doc. 146 ), signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/12/2012. (Fahrney, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SABAS ARREDONDO, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01247-LJO-DLB
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST TO
SEAL DOCUMENTS (Doc. 146)
vs.
DELANO FARMS COMPANY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
/
17
I. INTRODUCTION
18
Plaintiffs1 have filed a class action suit against Defendants, Delano Farms Company (“Delano
19
Farms”), Cal-Pacific Farm Management, L.P. (“Cal-Pacific”), T&R Bangi’s Agricultural Services, Inc.
20
(“TR Bangi”), and Does 1 through 10.2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the Migrant and
21
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act and engaged in various unlawful employment practices.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Plaintiffs are Sabas Arredondo, Jose Cuevas, Hilario Gomez, Irma Landeros, Rosalba Landeros, and the class
members. The class members are composed of:
All agricultural employees who are or have been employed, and who have worked one or more
shifts as non-exempt hourly and/or piece rate workers for DELANO FARMS COMPANY,
CAL-PACIFIC FARM MANAGEMENT, L.P. and/or T&R BANGI AG SERVICES, INC. in
the State of California from four (4) years prior to the filing of this action.
Sabas Arredondo, Jose Cuevas, Hilario Gomez, Irma Landeros, Rosalba Landeros, and the class members will be referred
to collectively as “Plaintiffs.”
2
Delano Farms, Cal-Pacific, TR Bangi, and Does 1 through 10 will be referred to collectively as “Defendants.”
1
1
Delano Farms has filed a motion for summary judgment. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’
2
request to file certain documents under seal in connection with their opposition to Delano Farms’ motion
3
for summary judgment. For the reasons discussed below this Court, GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to seal
4
documents.
5
II. DISCUSSION
6
Plaintiffs request to seal Exhibits A and B attached to their request to seal documents. (Notice
7
at Doc. 146). Exhibit A contains various emails regarding the terms of Delano Farms and TR Bangi’s
8
contract; a copy of their labor agreement; and information about customers and business associates of
9
Anderson & Middleton,3 Delano Farms, and TR Bangi. Exhibit B is a copy of Mike Edminster’s4
10
deposition which provides testimony regarding the documents contained in Exhibit A. Plaintiffs also
11
request the Court to seal portions of their yet to be filed opposition to Delano Farms’ motion for
12
summary judgment which will reproduce or paraphrase information from Exhibits A and B. Plaintiffs
13
argue that the Court should grant their request to seal the documents because the documents contain
14
trade secret information.
15
“Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public records and
16
documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447
17
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). In the Ninth Circuit, there is a
18
strong presumption in favor of access to court records. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331
19
F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Thus, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of
20
overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1135. “That
21
is, the party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the
22
general history of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in
23
understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks and
24
citations omitted). In turn, the Court must balance the competing interests of the public and the party
25
who seeks to keep the judicial records secret. Id. at 1179. “In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient
26
3
27
Anderson & Middleton Company is a non-party witness to this action.
4
28
Mike Edminster is the Secretary and Treasure of both the non-party witness Anderson & Middleton Company and
Defendant Delano Farms.
2
1
to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court
2
files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes.’” Id. at 1179 quoting Nixon v. Warner
3
Communications Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). For instance, “courts have refused to permit their files
4
to serve as . . . sources of business information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.”
5
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598.
6
Plaintiffs contend that Exhibits A and B, attached to their request to seal documents, and any
7
reproduction of the information in Exhibits A and B in their opposition to Delano Farms’ motion for
8
summary judgment, should be sealed because the documents reveal specific financial information
9
regarding amounts paid to business associates of Anderson & Middleton and Delano Farms which could
10
be used by competitors to erode Anderson & Middleton and Delano Farms’ competitiveness in the table
11
grape industry. Plaintiffs also argue that information regarding the nature of the relationship between
12
Delano Farms and TR Bangi could be used to gain an unfair competitive advantage by other table grape
13
growers and farm labor contractors. Because the documents in Exhibits A and B contain discussions
14
regarding Delano Farms contract with TR Bangi, including the financial terms of their agreement, the
15
disclosure of this information could harm the parties’ competitive standing in their respective industries.
16
Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 (“courts have refused to permit their files to serve as . . . sources of business
17
information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing.”). Moreover, as Plaintiffs point out, the
18
nature of the information in no way diminishes the public’s ability to determine the nature of the
19
proceedings or matters at issue in this litigation. Accordingly, this Court finds that the presumption of
20
public access to these records is outweighed by the potential harm to Defendants.
21
This Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to seal Exhibits A and B attached to their request to seal
22
documents and the portions of Plaintiffs’ opposition to Delano Farms’ motion for summary judgment
23
which reproduce or paraphrase portions of Exhibits A and B.
24
III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
25
For the reasons discussed above, this Court:
26
1.
27
28
ORDERS the confidential documents attached to Plaintiffs’ request to seal documents
and labeled as Exhibit A to be filed under seal;
2.
ORDERS the transcript attached to Plaintiffs’ request to seal documents and labeled as
3
1
Exhibit B to be filed under seal;
2
3.
ORDERS the portions of Plaintiffs’ opposition to Delano Farms’ motion for summary
3
judgment, which reproduce or paraphrase portions of Exhibits A or B, redacted from the
4
publicly available version of Plaintiffs’ opposition and any supporting documents filed;
5
and
6
4.
ORDERS Plaintiffs to email a complete, unredacted copy of its opposition to Delano
7
Farms’ motion for summary judgment to chambers, provide chambers a courtesy copy
8
of the unredacted version (if the papers exceed 25 pages), and electronically serve
9
Defendants an unredacted copy.
10
11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
66h44d
March 12, 2012
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?