Guilfoyle v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc.

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 8/26/13 ORDERING that no later than 8/28/2013, defendant shall either file on the public docket a redacted version of the referenced documents or demonstrate under the sealing standard sufficient justification for sealing all contents in the referenced documents. Decision on Defendant's sealing request will then follow. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SEAN GUILFOYLE,
Plaintiff,

8
9

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

v.

10

DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC.,

11

Defendant.
________________________________

2:12-cv-00703-GEB-CKD
ORDER

12
13

Defendant seeks to file under seal multiple documents and/or

14

portions of documents in support of its pending summary judgment motion.

15

In essence, Defendant argues that the information it seeks to file under

16

seal “contains confidential business and proprietary information about

17

[Defendant’s]

18

compensation structure, the disclosure of which would be detrimental to

19

[Defendant’s]

20

information about current and former employees, the disclosure of which

21

would be detrimental to third party privacy rights.” (Def.’s Not. of

22

Req. to Seal 2:12-25, ECF No. 41.)

23
24
25
26
27
28

finances,

financial

business

and

model,

competitive

operational

interests,”

practices

and

and

“private

Defendant indicates in its Request to Seal Documents, which
was submitted for in camera review:
[t]he portions of the MSJ and supporting documents
[Defendant] requests to seal are very limited so as
to minimize any negative impact to the public’s
right to access court records. Only certain salary
dollar amounts related to salaries, sales numbers,
SPEH numbers, and proprietary business information
are the subject of this request[, and] . . .
only . . . employee names [are sought to be
1

1

redacted] in order to preserve their individual
privacy rights.

2
3

(Def.’s Req. to Seal 5:13-16, 6:9-10.) However, the following documents

4

were neither filed on the public docket in redacted form, nor did

5

Defendant indicate in the documents submitted in support of its sealing

6

request that it seeks to file them under seal in their entirety:

7

Exhibits B-D to the Declaration of Julie Ash;

8

Exhibits F-I to the Declaration of David McDearmon; and

9

Exhibit 101 to Plaintiff’s deposition, which is attached as

10

Exhibit A to the Declaration of Constance Norton.

11

(See Decl. of Constance Norton in Supp. of Def.’s Req. to Seal ¶¶ 5-7,

12

13-14, 21.)

13

Therefore, no later than August 28, 2013, Defendant shall

14

either file on the public docket a redacted version of the referenced

15

documents

16

justification for sealing all contents in the referenced documents.

17

Decision on Defendant’s sealing request will then follow.

18

Dated:

or

demonstrate

under

the

sealing

standard

sufficient

August 26, 2013

19
20
21

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
Senior United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2