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)
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?