G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN
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
GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS,
INC., RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP,
On November 15, 2021, Defendant Guardian Protection Products, Inc. (“Guardian”)
submitted a notice of request to seal exhibits 1, 10–13, 15, 18, 20, 24–26, and 28–32 to the
Declaration of Aaron P. Rudin in support of Guardian’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1-7 (“Rudin
Declaration”) and to seal an unredacted version of Guardian’s Motion in Limine No. 2, which
contains quotations from the Revised Expert Report of Peter D. Wrobel (the “Request to Seal”).
(Doc. 449.) Guardian’s Request to Seal state that these documents “have been marked by one of
the parties to this action as confidential and/or highly confidential attorneys’ eyes only pursuant to
the Stipulated Protective Order in this matter.” (Id. at 2.) The parties’ Stipulated Protective Order
provides that “[i]n the event that a party wishes to use any Confidential Information, or any
document containing or making reference to the contents of such information, in any pleading or
document filed with the Court, such pleading or document shall be filed under seal pursuant to the
Local Civil Rules.”1 (Doc. 45 at 9.)
“Confidential Information” is defined as “any information in any of the Discovery Material that is designated as
Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), a request to seal a document “shall set forth the statutory or
other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to
be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” L.R. 141(b). “Only if
good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after balancing ‘the needs
for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’”
113CV02060AWIJLT, 2014 WL 12573330, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2014) (quoting Pintos v. Pac.
Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010)). A party may submit an opposition to a
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.
Plaintiff G.P.P., Inc. d/b/a Guardian Innovative Solutions has not submitted an opposition
to Guardian’s Request to Seal, and the time to do so has expired. Guardian’s Request to Seal is
therefore deemed unopposed. Guardian has complied with Local Rule 141, and in view of the
documents’ designation under the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, to which there has been no
challenge (see Doc. 45 at 7–8), the Court finds there is good cause to allow Guardian to file them
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Guardian’s unopposed Request to Seal (Doc. 449), and
ORDERS exhibits 1, 10–13, 15, 18, 20, 24–26, and 28–32 to the Rudin Declaration and the
unredacted version of Guardian’s Motion in Limine No. 2 be FILED UNDER SEAL in accordance
with Local Rule 141(e)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
November 19, 2021
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
‘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.)
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?