General Electric Company, et al. v. Wilkins
Filing
457
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING Second Request of Plaintiff, Defendant and Intervenor to Seal Additional Documents Related to Dispositive Motions 444 445 446 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/12/2012. (Hall, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
WILLIAM F. LEE (admitted pro hac vice)
RICHARD W. O‟NEILL (admitted pro hac vice)
ELIZABETH M. REILLY (admitted pro hac vice)
LOUIS W. TOMPROS (admitted pro hac vice)
CARRIE H. SEARES (admitted pro hac vice)
SYDENHAM B. ALEXANDER, III (admitted pro hac vice)
NIMIT Y. PATEL (admitted pro hac vice)
ALEX C. BOUDREAU (admitted pro hac vice)
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
ANDREA JEFFRIES (State Bar No. 183408)
350 South Grand Avenue, Suit 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 443-5397
Facsimile: (213) 443-5400
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,
WAYTE & CARRUTH, LLP
LOWELL T. CARRUTH (State Bar No. 34065)
5 River Park Place East
P.O. Box 28912
Fresno, CA 93720
Telephone: (559) 433-1300
Facsimile: (559) 433-2300
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY AND
GE WIND ENERGY, LLC
18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
19
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20
21
22
23
24
25
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New )
York corporation; and GE WIND ENERGY, )
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, )
)
Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants, )
)
vs.
)
)
THOMAS WILKINS, an individual,
)
)
Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff.
)
)
Case No. 1:10-cv-00674 LJO JLT
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING
SECOND REQUEST OF PLAINIFF,
DEFENDANT AND INTERVENOR TO
SEAL ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS
RELATED TO DISPOSITIVE
MOTIONS
(Docs. 444, 445, 446)
26
27
28
-1–
ORDER GRANTING SECOND REQUEST TO SEAL ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
1
Before the Court are the requests of each of the parties to seal additional documents they
2
intend to use in the upcoming dispositive motions. (Docs. 444, 445, 446) It appears that the
3
documents sought to be filed under seal here, relate to oppositions to motions.
A motion to seal documents that are not part of the judicial record, such as “private
4
5
materials unearthed during discovery,” is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
6
Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass‟n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010). Under Federal Rule of
7
Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court may issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance,
8
embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade
9
secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or
10
be revealed only in a specified way.” To make the determination whether documents should be
11
sealed, the Court must evaluate whether “„good cause‟ exists to protect th[e] information from
12
being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the need for
13
confidentiality.‟” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors
14
Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)).
15
Generally, documents filed in civil cases are presumed to be available to the public.
16
EEOC v. Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331
F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir.2003). Documents may be sealed only when the compelling reasons
for doing so outweigh the public‟s right of access. EEOC at 170. To determine whether such
documents should be sealed, the Court is to evaluate factors including, the “public interest in
understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in
improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade
secrets.” Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir.
1986).
24
It is asserted that the documents sought to be sealed include confidential business records
25
of GE, patent application materials, confidential personal information, attorney client
26
communications and attorney-work product material. Such materials are properly sealed. Valley
27
Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986); In re
28
-2–
ORDER GRANTING SECOND REQUEST TO SEAL ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
1
Spalding Sports Worldwide, Inc., 203 F.3d 805, 806 (Fed. Cir. 2000); China Intl Travel Servs.
2
(USA) v. China & Asia Travel Serv., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106622 at *29 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18,
3
2008); Mine O'Mine, Inc. v. Calmese, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53077 at *10 (D. Nev. Apr. 16,
4
2012).
After the Court‟s review, it finds that certain of the information detailed below, in fact,
5
6
reveals confidential, non-public information about the parties‟ corporate operations, information
7
that is protected by the attorney-client communication or attorney work-product privileges or
8
constitutes non-public personal information. Thus, the requests to seal are GRANTED.
Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:
9
1.
10
11
are ordered SEALED;
2.
12
13
The requested portions of Exhibits 3 through 24 to Mr. McGinness‟ declaration,
The parties SHALL file their opposition papers no later than July 13, 2012 in
redacted form, consistent with the Court‟s rulings herein.
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
17
July 12, 2012
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
DEAC_Signature-END:
9j7khijed
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3–
ORDER GRANTING SECOND REQUEST TO SEAL ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO
DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
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?