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