Foster Poultry Farms, Inc. v. XL Insurance et al

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 9/23/2015 DENYING 42 Plaintiff's Request to Seal and DENYING 48 Defendant Certain Underwriters of Lloyd's Request to Seal. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
----oo0oo----

11
12

FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, INC.,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17

v.

CIV. No. 1:14-00953 WBS SAB
ORDER RE: PARTIES’ REQUESTS TO
SEAL DOCUMENTS

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT
LLOYD’S, LONDON,
Defendants.

18
19
20
----oo0oo----

21
22

Plaintiff and defendants submitted separate requests to

23

seal documents, (Docket Nos. 42, 48), in connection with their

24

respective briefings on plaintiff’s motion to strike, (Docket

25

Nos. 43, 49).

26

their previous requests to seal documents in connection with

27

their motions for summary judgment, (Docket Nos. 38, 39), which

28

the court denied in full on September 3, 2015, (Docket No. 45).

The parties’ requests are almost identical to

1

1

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the

2

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public

3

access.

4

1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

5

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the

6

general history of access and the public policies favoring

7

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the

8

judicial process.”

9

on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
The party must “articulate compelling

Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted).

In ruling

10

interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records

11

secret.

Id at 1179.

12

I. Plaintiff’s Request

13

Plaintiff has submitted a request to seal the proposed

14

memorandum in support of its motion to strike and five supporting

15

exhibits, together totaling 127 pages of material.1

16

No. 42.)

Once again, plaintiff offers little explanation for its

17

request.

Plaintiff recites the boilerplate concerns from its

18

first request to seal and states that the disclosure of the 127

19

pages of materials could cause it disadvantage, harm, damage,

20

and/or loss.

21

the history of access and public policies favoring disclosure to

22

the public.

23

(9th Cir. 2001).

(See Docket

Once again, these concerns alone do not outweigh

See In re McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 288 F.3d 369

24
25
26
27
28

1

In the court’s prior order denying plaintiff’s request
to seal, the court already denied plaintiff’s request as to Dr.
Maxcy P. Nolan III’s expert report dated May 1, 2015. (Compare
Pl.’s First Req. to Seal ¶ 8 (Docket No. 39), with Pl.’s Second
Req. to Seal ¶ 2 (Docket No. 42).)
2

1

Plaintiff also states that the documents include

2

customer information, but again fails to indicate where.

Upon

3

review of the materials, the court was unable to identify any

4

sensitive or privileged information relating to customers.

5

Absent any guidance, the court cannot find a compelling reason to

6

seal the entire memorandum in support of plaintiff’s motion to

7

strike or any of the supporting materials.

8

II. Defendants’ Request

9

Defendants have requested that the court seal documents

10

and redact information in connection with their opposition to

11

plaintiff’s motion to strike.2

12

defendants’ only justification for sealing these documents is that

13

the parties stipulated to, and the magistrate judge entered, a

14

blanket protective order regarding documents to be disclosed in

15

this case.

16

(See Docket No. 48.)

Once again,

This court has previously held that a confidentiality

17

agreement between the parties does not per se constitute a

18

compelling reason to seal documents outweighing the interests of

19

public disclosure and access.

20

Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging Distrib., Civ. No. 2:13-1754

21

(E.D. Cal. 2014).

22

signed the stipulated protective order does not change this

23

principle.

October 8, 2014 Order at 2,

The fact that the assigned magistrate judge

24
25
26
27
28

2

In the court’s prior order denying defendants’ request
to seal, the court already denied defendants’ request as to
Exhibits B–E to the Declaration of Wayne A. Wolff. (Compare
Defs.’ First Req. to Seal at 2 (Docket No. 38), with Defs.’
Second Req. to Seal at 2 (Docket No. 48).)
3

1

Beyond the stipulated protective order, defendants offer

2

no further guidance as to why these materials should be sealed.

3

The burden is not on the court to parse a substantial amount of

4

material to determine whether it contains sensitive information.

5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to

6

seal, (Docket No. 42), and defendants’ request to seal, (Docket

7

No. 48), be, and the same hereby are, both DENIED.

8

Dated:

September 23, 2015

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4