Guilfoyle v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc.

Filing 64

ORDER ON REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENT(S) signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 8/30/13. Defendant's request to seal is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide to the Clerk an electronic copy of the documents to be filed under seal as prescribed in LR 141 (e)(2)(i). (Manzer, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SEAN GUILFOYLE, 8 9 10 No. 2:12-cv-00703-GEB-CKD Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC., 11 Defendant. 12 13 Defendant seeks to file under seal multiple documents 14 and/or portions of documents in support of its pending summary 15 judgment motion. (See Def.’s Notice of Req. to Seal, ECF No. 41.) 16 Specifically, Defendant requests the following documents be filed 17 under seal: 18 19 20 21 22 23 Exhibits B-D to the Amended Declaration of Jill Ash (ECF No. 59); Lines 2:25, 3:5, 3:7-9 in the Declaration of Randy Davison (ECF No. 50); Line 4:8 and exhibit F to the Declaration of Carlos Hernandez (ECF No. 47); 24 Lines 3:20, 3:22, 3:24, 3:25, 3:27, 4:2; exhibits A, C– 25 E, J–L; and portions of exhibits F-I to the Amended Declaration 26 of David McDearmon (DEC No. 57); 27 28 Portions of Exhibit A to the Amended Declaration of Constance E. Norton (ECF No. 56); 1 1 2 Lines 3:15, 3:17-18, 3:20-22, 3:24-27, and exhibit A to the Declaration of Steven Pearson (ECF No. 51); 3 4 Exhibit A to the Declaration of Brian Prettyman (ECF No. 52); 5 Lines 5:8, 5:16-18, 5:21, 5:24-25, 6:6, 6:11, 6:16, 6 11:23, 14:6, and 15:8 in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities 7 in 8 Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 42); and Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or 9 Undisputed Facts Nos. 8-15, 17-19, 22-23, 65, and 100- 10 101 in the Separate Statement of Facts submitted in support of 11 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Partial Summary 12 Judgment (ECF No. 43). 13 In essence, Defendant argues that the information it 14 seeks 15 proprietary 16 model, 17 disclosure 18 financial and competitive interests,” and “private information 19 about current and former employees, the disclosure of which would 20 be detrimental to third party privacy rights.” (Def.’s Not. of 21 Req. to Seal 2:12-25.) 22 to file under seal information operational of about practices which “Courts “contains have would long confidential [Defendant’s] and be finances, compensation detrimental recognized a business to and business structure, the [Defendant’s] ‘general right to 23 inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial 24 records and documents.’” Williams v. U.S. Bank Ass’n, --- F.R.D. 25 ----, 2013 WL 3119055, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (quoting Nixon v. 26 Warner 27 particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a 28 ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 2 589, 597 (1978)). “Unless a 1 Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th 2 Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 3 F.3d 4 strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record 5 must 6 historical 7 disclosure.” Williams, 2013 WL 3119055, at *2 (citing Kamakana, 8 447 F.3d at 1178-79). 1122, 1135 articulate 9 Cir.2003)). justifications right “Two (9th of access standards “In for and order sealing the generally public govern to overcome that this outweigh policies motions the favoring to seal 10 documents[.]” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 11 (9th 12 public’s interest in non-dispositive motions is relatively lower 13 than its interest in trial or a dispositive motion. Accordingly, 14 a party seeking to seal a document attached to a non-dispositive 15 motion need only demonstrate ‘good cause’ to justify sealing.” 16 Williams, 2013 WL 3119055, at *2 (citing Pintos, 605 F.3d at 17 678). “Conversely, ‘the resolution of a dispute on the merits, 18 whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the 19 interest in ensuring the public’s understanding of the judicial 20 process 21 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179). “Accordingly, a party seeking to 22 seal a judicial record attached to a dispositive motion or one 23 that is presented at trial must articulate ‘compelling reasons’ 24 in favor of sealing.” Id. (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178). 25 Cir. 2010). and “In of “The Ninth significant general, Circuit public ‘compelling has determined events.’” reasons’ Id. that the (quoting sufficient to 26 outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and justify sealing 27 court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a 28 vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to 3 1 gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous 2 statements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 3 (quoting 4 information that might harm a litigant’s competitive standing’ 5 often warrant protection under seal.” Williams, 2013 WL 3119055, 6 at *3 (alteration in original) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). 7 Also, “[p]rivacy interests of non-parties . . . may weigh heavily 8 against 9 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 2010 WL 3924689, at *9 10 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2010) (citing United States v. Amodeo, 71 11 F.3d 1044, 1050-51 (2d Cir. 1995)). 12 Nixon, public Here, 435 U.S. access each at to of 598). the the “‘[S]ources information documents at and/or of business issue.” portions King of 13 documents Defendant seeks to file under seal comprises business 14 information the public disclosure of which could be detrimental 15 to Defendant’s competitive interests or identifying information 16 of third parties, i.e., Defendant’s current and former employees. 17 Further, where feasible, Defendant has filed on the public docket 18 redacted versions of the documents it seeks to seal to minimize 19 the impact to the public’s right to access court records. Since 20 Defendant 21 referenced documents and/or portions of documents, Defendant’s 22 request to seal is GRANTED. Defendant shall provide to the Clerk 23 an electronic copy of the documents to be filed under seal as 24 prescribed in Local Rule 141(e)(2)(i). 25 Dated: has provided “compelling August 30, 2013 26 27 28 4 reasons” to seal the

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?