Pizana v. Sanmedica International LLC

Filing 130

ORDER GRANTING 119 Plaintiff's Unopposed Request to Seal Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 1/4/2021. (Rivera, O)

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. 119)

Defendant.

12
13

On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff Raul Pizana submitted a request to seal exhibits A, B, and

14

C to his “Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint”

15

(the “Request to Seal”). (Doc. 119.) Plaintiff’s Request to Seal states that these documents contain

16

information “designated . . . as ‘Confidential’ pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order.” (Doc.

17

119 at 2.) The parties’ Protective Order provides that, “[i]n the event that a party wishes to use any

18

Confidential Information, or any document containing or making reference to the contents of such

19

information, in any pleading or document filed with the Court, such pleading shall be filed under

20

seal pursuant to the Local Civil Rules, . . . unless the party receives advanced written permission

21

from the Designating Party to file without filing under seal.”1 (Doc. 76 at 9.)

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’”

27

1

28

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

“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

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Request to Seal (Doc. 119) and

10

ORDERS that exhibits A, B, and C to Plaintiff’s “Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for

11

Leave to File Third Amended Complaint” be FILED UNDER SEAL in accordance with Local Rule

12

141(e)(2).

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 4, 2021

/s/

Sheila K. Oberto

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

.