E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Proximo Spirits, Inc. et al

Filing 334

ORDER GRANTING in Part and Denying in Part Request to Seal Documents 333 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on June 6, 2012. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 E & J GALLO WINERY, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. PROXIMO SPIRITS, INC., et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:10-cv-00411 LJO JLT ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PARTY REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS (Doc. 333) 16 17 18 19 Before Court is the request, filed by Defendants to seal certain documents upon which they intend to rely in opposing Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys fees (Doc. 310). Given the numerous such requests the Court has received in this case, the parties are quite clear 20 as to the standards by which such a motion is decided. However, once again, the Court observes that 21 this request is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The Rule permits the Court to 22 issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue 23 burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, 24 development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” 25 Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after balancing “the 26 needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 27 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 28 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). 1 1 Generally, documents filed in civil cases are presumed to be available to the public. EEOC v. 2 Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 3 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th 4 Cir.2003). Documents may be sealed only when the compelling reasons for doing so outweigh the 5 public’s right of access. EEOC at 170. In evaluating the request, the Court considers the “public 6 interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in 7 improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” 8 Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). 9 After the Court’s review, it finds that certain of the information detailed below, in fact, reveals 10 confidential, non-public information about the parties’ private corporate operations. As to this 11 information, the request is GRANTED. Thus, the request as to footnote 6 of the memorandum of 12 points and authorities and Exhibits 1, 13 and 14 will be GRANTED. 13 However, as to any information that is non-substantive or is already in the public view, the 14 request is DENIED. For example, as to Exhibit 2, This exhibit was filed in this case on the public 15 docket on July 26, 2010 (Doc. 27) and there is no showing that would justify sealing it at this time. 16 Likewise, Exhibit 3 does not appear to contain any substantive or confidential information. Thus, the 17 request as to these exhibits is DENIED. 18 ORDER 19 Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 20 1. 21 22 23 Defendants’ request to seal is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows: a. Court is DIRECTED to file these documents under seal: 24 25 i. 28 The requested portion of the memorandum of points and authorities which includes only footnote 6 at page 17; 26 27 The request as to the following material is GRANTED and the Clerk of the ii. b. Exhibits 1, 13 and 14; The request as to the following material is DENIED: i. Exhibits 2 and 3; 2 1 2 2. Within two court days of service of this order, Defendants SHALL file redacted copies of the sealed documents, consistent with this order, on the public document. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 Dated: June 6, 2012 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 9j7khijed 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?