Murphy et al v. Housing Authority of the County of Kern et al

Filing 34

ORDER GRANTING 32 Defendants' Request to Seal Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 7/18/2014. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

BRITTNEY MURPHY, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY )
)
OF KERN, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00776 JLT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST
TO SEAL DOCUMENTS
(Doc. 31)

16
Before Court is the request of Defendants to seal pages of exhibits offered in opposition to the

17
18

motion for preliminary injunction. For the reasons set forth below, the request is GRANTED.

19

I.

20

Legal Authority
The request to seal documents is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The

21

Rule permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

22

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

23

confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in

24

a specified way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after

25

balancing “the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors

26

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors

27

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)).

28

Generally, documents filed in civil cases are presumed to be available to the public. EEOC v.
1

1

Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu,

2

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th

3

Cir.2003). Documents may be sealed only when the compelling reasons for doing so outweigh the

4

public’s right of access. EEOC at 170. In evaluating the request, the Court considers the “public

5

interest in understanding the judicial process” against the private interests of the litigants. Valley

6

Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986).

7

Here, Defendants rely upon the protective order issued in this case designed to protect the

8

identity of one of the plaintiffs for reasons unrelated to this litigation. (Doc. 33) For the reasons set

9

forth in the protective order (Doc. 33), this information is properly sealed. Id.; In re Spalding Sports

10

Worldwide, Inc., 203 F.3d 805, 806 (Fed. Cir. 2000); China Intl Travel Servs. (USA) v. China & Asia

11

Travel Serv., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106622 at *29 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2008); Mine O'Mine, Inc. v.

12

Calmese, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53077 at *10 (D. Nev. Apr. 16, 2012). Thus, Defendants’ motion is

13

GRANTED.

14

ORDER

15

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

16

1.

17

The motion is GRANTED and the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to file the

documents under seal.

18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 18, 2014

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2