General Electric Company, et al. v. Wilkins

Filing 285

ORDER Granting Request to Seal Documents Without Prejudice 280 signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 2/1/2012. (Leon-Guerrero, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
THOMAS WILKINS, an individual
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________ )

Case No.: 1:10-cv-00674 LJO JLT
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
(Doc. 280)

16
17
18
19
20

Before the Court is Mitsubishi’s Request to Seal Documents related to the current
discovery dispute (Doc. 279). (Doc. 280)
A motion to seal documents that are not part of the judicial record, such as “private

21

materials unearthed during discovery,” is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).

22

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010). Under Federal Rule of

23

Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court may issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance,

24

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade

25

secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or

26

be revealed only in a specified way.”

27

To make the determination whether documents should be sealed, the Court must evaluate

28
1

1

whether “‘good cause’ exists to protect th[e] information from being disclosed to the public by

2

balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678

3

(quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.

4

2002))

5

Here, the documents at issue are all stamped “CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY EYES

6

ONLY INFORMATION.” The documents appear to be internal communications related to the

7

patent application(s) for the intellectual property at issue. Many of the communications appear to

8

be directed to or are authored by an attorney employed by GE Power Systems. Though the Court

9

does not and cannot find at this time, that the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product

10

applies, the Court does find that the entire exhibit appears to be made up of confidential

11

information not otherwise available or known to the public. Likewise, the Court finds that the

12

need to maintain the confidentiality of this material outweighs the need for public disclosure.

13

Therefore, as to these materials, the motion is GRANTED.

14

Therefore, good cause appearing,

15

1.

The Court ORDERS the following to be SEALED:

16

a.

17

Claims, lodged with the Court;

18

2.

The exhibit to the Motion to Compel and Determination of Privilege

The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file this exhibit under seal.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: February 1, 2012
9j7khi

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2