Pizana v. Sanmedica International LLC

Filing 120

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS; Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/23/2020. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RAUL PIZANA,

8

Case No. 1:18-cv-00644-DAD-SKO
Plaintiff,

9

v.

10

SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL, LLC,

11

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS
(Doc. 115)

Defendant.

12
13

On December 17, 2020, Plaintiff Raul Pizana submitted a request to seal volumes I and II

14

of the “Deposition transcript of Gina Daines as the corporate representative for Defendant” and

15

exhibits B, C, and D to the “Joint Statement re: Discovery Dispute: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel

16

the Resumption of the 30(b)(6) Deposition of Defendant SanMedica International, LLC (Gina

17

Daines)” (the “Joint Statement”) (collectively, the “Request to Seal”). (Doc. 115.) Plaintiff’s

18

Request to Seal states that these documents contain information “designated . . . as ‘Confidential’

19

pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order.” (Doc. 115 at 2.) The parties’ Protective Order

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

Rules, . . . unless the party receives advanced written permission from the Designating Party to file

24

without filing under seal.”1 (Doc. 76 at 9.)

25

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

26

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

27

1

28

“Confidential Information” is defined as “any information in any of the Discovery Material that is designated as
‘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. 76 at 2.)

1

1

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

2

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

3

for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’”

4

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

5

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

6

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.

7

Defendant SanMedica International, LLC has not submitted an opposition to Plaintiff’s

8

Request to Seal, and the time to do so has expired. Plaintiff’s Request to Seal is therefore deemed

9

unopposed. Plaintiff has complied with Local Rule 141, and in view of the documents’ designation

10

under the parties’ Protective Order, to which there has been no challenge (see Doc. 76 at 7–8), the

11

Court finds there is good cause to allow Plaintiff to file them under seal.

12

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Request to Seal (Doc. 115) and

13

ORDERS that volumes I and II of the “Deposition transcript of Gina Daines as the corporate

14

representative for Defendant” and exhibits B, C, and D to the Joint Statement be FILED UNDER

15

SEAL in accordance with Local Rule 141(e)(2).

16
17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 23, 2020

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.