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)

Download PDF
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?