Van Maanen v. Youth With a Mission-Bishop et al

Filing 69

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Request to Seal Documents 61 signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/20/2011. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JACO VAN MAANEN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
YOUTH WITH A MISSION-BISHOP, et al., )
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00493 AWI JLT
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART REQUEST TO SEAL
DECLARATION OF JONATHON BLUTE
AND EXHIBITS THERETO AND THE
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE
MOTION FOR GOOD FAITH
SETTLEMENT
(Doc. 61)

17
18

Before the Court is the Request to Seal Documents filed by Defendant Youth With A

19

Mission International, Inc. (“Defendant”), that will be filed in support of it’s motion for good

20

faith settlement. (Doc. 61) In particular, Defendant seeks to have sealed a declaration of its

21

attorney, Jonathon Blute and exhibits attached thereto including the settlement agreement at issue

22

and certain, unspecified, portions of the memorandum that will be filed in support of its motion

23

for good faith settlement that recite the terms of the settlement agreement.1 No party opposed

24

this request.

25
26
1

27

Despite the Court issuing a minute order requiring Defendant to lodge the documents subject to the sealing
request that specifically highlighting the material that it wished to be sealed, Defendant merely re-lodged the same
documents and requested their entirety to be sealed. This fails to comply with Local Rule 141.

28
1

1

To make this determination, the Court must evaluate whether “‘good cause’ exists to

2

protect th[e] information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery

3

against the need for confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th

4

Cir. 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213

5

(9th Cir. 2002))

6

Review of the settlement agreement makes clear that it reveals information that would not

7

otherwise be known or available to the public. On this basis, the Court finds good cause to seal

8

the settlement agreement and the portions of the memorandum of points and authorities which set

9

forth the terms of the settlement. Thus, in this regard, the motion is GRANTED. On the other

10

hand, the Blute declaration and the e-mail correspondence between the lawyers is not

11

confidential by its nature and is of the type that is frequently filed in an unsealed state.

12

Moreover, Defendant fails to provide cogent argument or authority that demonstrates that these

13

documents should be sealed. Thus, as to these documents, the motion is DENIED.

14

ORDER

15
16

Therefore, good cause appearing,
1.

The Court ORDERS the following documents or portions thereof to be SEALED:

17

a.

Exhibit A to the Blute declaration;

18

b.

The following portions of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support

19

of Defendant Youth With A Mission - International, Inc.’s Application for an

20

Order Determining Good Faith Settlement:

21

i.

page 2, lines 4-6, (the last full sentence of the paragraph);

22

ii.

page 4, lines 4-6, (the first full sentence of the paragraph);

23

iii.

page 8, lines 5-6, (the first full sentence of the paragraph);

24

2.

25
26

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file these documents or portion thereof under
seal;

3.

The Court ORDERS the following NOT to be SEALED:

27

a.

The Blute Declaration;

28

b.

Exhibit B to the Blute Declaration;
2

1

c.

Exhibit C to the Blute Declaration;

2

d.

Exhibit D to the Blute Declaration;

3

e.

Exhibit E to the Blute Declaration;

4

f.

All other portions of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities In Support of

5

Defendant Youth With A Mission - International, Inc.’s Application for an Order

6

Determining Good Faith Settlement, not set forth above.

7

4.

The moving party is ORDERED to file the documents ordered not to be sealed and a

8

redacted version of the memorandum of points and authorities consistent with the Court’s

9

order set forth above, within two business days of the date of service of this order.

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: October 20, 2011
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3