Wilson v. Conair Corporation

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Request to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/23/2015. (Hernandez, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DELIA WILSON, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Case No. 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. (ECF No. 42) 14 CONAIR CORPORATION, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On June 11, 2014, Plaintiff Delia Wilson filed this action on behalf of herself and others 19 similarly situated. On April 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel further responses to 20 discovery requests. On April 22, 2015, the parties filed a joint statement and Plaintiff filed a 21 request to file documents under seal. 22 Pursuant to the Local Rule of the United States Court, Eastern District of California 23 (“L.R.”), documents may only be sealed by written order of the Court upon the showing required 24 by applicable law. L.R. 141(a). Plaintiff seeks to seal the documents as the parties have 25 stipulated that they are covered by a protective order. The stipulated protective order in this 26 action allows the parties to identify documents as confidential without any criteria to show that 27 the document would be entitled to confidentiality. (ECF No. 28.) 28 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 1 1 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’ ” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of 2 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 3 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)). Since nondispositive motions are often unrelated, or only 4 tangentially related, to the underlying cause of action, the public’s interest in access to 5 documents attached to them is not as strong as those attached to dispositive motions. Pintos v. 6 Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). Therefore, where a document is 7 attached to a nondispositive motion the usual presumption of the public’s right to access in 8 rebutted; and the party merely needs to show good cause to preserve the secrecy of the 9 document. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80. Here, Plaintiff did not identify the documents which are to be sealed. The Court does not 10 11 seal case documents or exhibits from public view without good cause. The fact that the parties 12 designate the documents confidential under the protective order is insufficient by itself show that 13 good cause exists to file documents under seal. The Local Rule provides that in making a 14 request to file documents under seal, the party must generally identify the documents to be 15 sealed. L.R. 141(b). Plaintiff is directed to Local Rule 141 which is available on the Court’s 16 website at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov for additional required information to be included in a 17 request to seal. Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information for the Court to find good cause 18 to grant the request to seal. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to file documents under 19 20 seal is DENIED without prejudice. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: April 23, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?