Finder v. Leprino Foods Company et al

Filing 121

ORDER GRANTING Philip A. Downey's 117 Request to Seal Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/26/2019. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

JERROD FINDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, et al.,

No. 1:13-cv-02059-AWI-BAM
ORDER GRANTING PHILIP A. DOWNEY’S
REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS
(Doc. No. 117)

Defendants.

15
16

Currently before the Court is the ex parte request by Philip A. Downey, counsel for
17
18
19

Plaintiffs Isaias Vasquez and Linda Hefke, to file the “Declaration of Philip A. Downey ISO
Unopposed Motion to Continue Hearing Date” and all documents attached thereto under seal
pursuant to Local Rule 141. (Doc. No. 117.) For the reasons that follow, Mr. Downey’s request

20
is GRANTED.
21
22
23
24
25
26

“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435
U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). “[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and
the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1180. This “federal common law right of access”
to court documents generally extends to “all information filed with the court,” and “creates a

27
strong presumption in favor of access to judicial documents which can be overcome only by
28
1

1

showing sufficiently important countervailing interests.” Phillips ex. Rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen.

2

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Two

3

standards govern whether documents should be sealed: a “compelling reasons” standard, which

4

applies to dispositive motions, and a “good cause” standard, which applies to non-dispositive

5

discovery type motions. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n,

6

605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). The “good cause” standard, which is applicable here,

7

presents a lower burden for the party wishing to seal documents. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. Courts

8

determine whether good cause exists to protect the information from being disclosed to the public

9

by “balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Id. (quoting Phillips,

10
11

307 F.3d at 1213).
Mr. Downey asserts that there is good cause to seal the documents at issue because they

12

“concern[] health information relating to members of [Mr. Downey’s] immediate family” who are

13

non-parties to this case. (Doc. No. 117.) Having considered the documents at issue, the Court

14

concludes that counsel has sufficiently shown good cause for filing under seal. Accordingly,

15

good cause being shown, Mr. Downey’s request to seal is HEREBY GRANTED. The Court

16

orders that the “Declaration of Philip A. Downey ISO Unopposed Motion to Continue Hearing

17

Date” and the documents attached thereto be filed and maintained under seal. Mr. Downey will

18

email the documents requested to be sealed to [e-mail] for filing

19

under seal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

November 26, 2019

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2