G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc.

Filing 450

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, INC.'S UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 141. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 11/19/2021. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS,

7
8

Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00321-SKO
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS,
INC.’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LOCAL RULE 141

11
GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS,
INC., RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP,
INC.,

12
13

(Doc. 449)

Defendants.
14
15
16

On November 15, 2021, Defendant Guardian Protection Products, Inc. (“Guardian”)

17

submitted a notice of request to seal exhibits 1, 10–13, 15, 18, 20, 24–26, and 28–32 to the

18

Declaration of Aaron P. Rudin in support of Guardian’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1-7 (“Rudin

19

Declaration”) and to seal an unredacted version of Guardian’s Motion in Limine No. 2, which

20

contains quotations from the Revised Expert Report of Peter D. Wrobel (the “Request to Seal”).

21

(Doc. 449.) Guardian’s Request to Seal state that these documents “have been marked by one of

22

the parties to this action as confidential and/or highly confidential attorneys’ eyes only pursuant to

23

the Stipulated Protective Order in this matter.” (Id. at 2.) The parties’ Stipulated Protective Order

24

provides that “[i]n the event that a party wishes to use any Confidential Information, or any

25

document containing or making reference to the contents of such information, in any pleading or

26

document filed with the Court, such pleading or document shall be filed under seal pursuant to the

27

Local Civil Rules.”1 (Doc. 45 at 9.)

28

1

“Confidential Information” is defined as “any information in any of the Discovery Material that is designated as

1

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), a request to seal a document “shall set forth the statutory or

2

other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to

3

be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” L.R. 141(b). “Only if

4

good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after balancing ‘the needs

5

for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’”

6

113CV02060AWIJLT, 2014 WL 12573330, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2014) (quoting Pintos v. Pac.

7

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010)). A party may submit an opposition to a

8

request to seal documents within three days of the date of service of the request. L.R. 141(c).

Koloff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No.

9

Plaintiff G.P.P., Inc. d/b/a Guardian Innovative Solutions has not submitted an opposition

10

to Guardian’s Request to Seal, and the time to do so has expired. Guardian’s Request to Seal is

11

therefore deemed unopposed. Guardian has complied with Local Rule 141, and in view of the

12

documents’ designation under the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, to which there has been no

13

challenge (see Doc. 45 at 7–8), the Court finds there is good cause to allow Guardian to file them

14

under seal.

15

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Guardian’s unopposed Request to Seal (Doc. 449), and

16

ORDERS exhibits 1, 10–13, 15, 18, 20, 24–26, and 28–32 to the Rudin Declaration and the

17

unredacted version of Guardian’s Motion in Limine No. 2 be FILED UNDER SEAL in accordance

18

with Local Rule 141(e)(2).

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto

November 19, 2021

.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

‘CONFIDENTIAL’ or ‘CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY’ by one or more of the parties to this action
or a third party responding to a subpoena served in this action. (Doc. 45 at 2.)

2