Wilson v. Conair Corporation

Filing 91

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Request To Seal Certain Exhibits Filed In Support Of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application To Extend Time To File Motion For Class Certification (ECF No. 89 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 12/9/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
Case No: 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB
11

DELIA WILSON, on Behalf of Herself and
All Others Similarly Situated,

12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
CONAIR CORPORATION,

CLASS ACTION
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
TO SEAL CERTAIN EXHIBITS FILED IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION

15
Defendant.

(ECF No. 89)

16
17
18

On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to modify the scheduling

19

order in this action. On December 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request to seal documents that

20

were inadvertently publically filed with the ex parte application.

21

The protective order entered in this action requires a party who files protected material

22

without the written permission of the opposing party to comply with Local Rule 141. (ECF

23

No. 28 at ¶ 11.3.) Rule 141 provides “Documents may be sealed only by written order of the

24

Court, upon the showing required by applicable law.’ In order to seal documents attached to a

25

nondispositive motion, the party is required to show good cause to seal the documents. Pintos

26

v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2009).

27

Here, Plaintiff states that she does not believe there is any confidential information

28

included in the documents, but is making the request because Defendant designated the

1

documents as confidential. As Plaintiff was informed in the April 23, 2015 order denying a

2

previous request to seal documents, “[t]he Court does not seal case documents or exhibits from

3

public view without good cause. The fact that the parties designate the documents confidential

4

under the protective order is insufficient by itself show that good cause exists to file

5

documents under seal.” (ECF No. 43 at 2:10-14.) Plaintiff has not demonstrated that good

6

cause exists to seal the documents attached to the application.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request to seal documents is

7
8

DENIED.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated:

December 9, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1