Service Employees International Union v. Prime Health Care Services, Inc. et al

Filing 62

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 6/21/2010 ORDERING that the Court tentitively GRANTS the MPT dfts' 40 Motion to Seal. Dfts are cautioned that his sealing is tentative. Pltfs shall file a reasoned motion to seal the documents it filed under seal in its opposition to the MPT dfts motion for summary judgment within 7 days. The court, nonetheless, tentatively seals the documents Pltf has filed under seal in its opposition. (Zignago, K.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED 11 HEALTHCARE WORKERS - WEST, on behalf of represented 12 employees, NO. CIV. S-08-2980 LKK/CMK 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES, 16 INC.; PRIME HEALTHCARE SERVICES - SHASTA, LLC; 17 SHASTA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.; SHASTA 18 REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LLC; MEDICAL PROPERTIES TRUST; MPT 19 OF SHASTA, LP; MPT OF SHASTA, LLC; MPT OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, 20 LP; and DOES 1 through 25, 21 22 23 Defendants. / Defendants in this case have moved for summary judgment. Along

ORDER

24 with their motion, defendants Medical Properties Trust ("MPT"), 25 Inc, MPT of Shasta, L.P., MPT of Shasta, LLC, and MPT Operating 26 Partnership, L.P. ("MPT defendants"), filed a motion to seal. The 1

1 other defendants did not file a motion to seal and did not seek to 2 seal any documents. In opposition to the MPT defendants motion, 3 plaintiffs filed some documents under seal without a motion. 4 There is a strong presumption in favor of public access to

5 documents filed in connection with dispositive motions such as a 6 motion for summary judgment, and this presumption weighs against 7 sealing such documents. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 8 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). In the context of a dispositive 9 motion, "the district court must base its decision [to seal

10 materials] on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis 11 for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture." Foltz 12 v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 13 2003). 14 The magistrate judge has previously adopted a stipulated order

15 concerning the use of private and confidential information in this 16 case. (Dkt. No. 33). 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (3) (2) For the foregoing reasons the court ORDERS as follows: (1) The court tentatively GRANTS the MPT defendants' motion (Dkt. No. 40). Defendants are cautioned, however, that this sealing is tentative. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186. The court will revisit whether these documents should be permanently sealed at a later time, when it is possible to perform the fact specific analysis required by Foltz. Plaintiffs shall file a reasoned motion to seal the documents it filed under seal in its opposition to the 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (4)

MPT defendants motion for summary judgment within seven (7) days of the issuance of this order. The court, nonetheless, tentatively seals the documents plaintiff has filed under seal in its opposition. (Dkt. No. 52). IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: June 21, 2010.

3