Samuels v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc.

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 12/9/2014 ORDERING that Plaintiff's 35 Request to Seal Documents is DENIED. Further, since Local Rule 141(e)(1) prescribes that if a sealing "[r]equest is denied in full or in part, the C lerk will return to the submitting party the documents for which sealing has been denied," the documents emailed to the courtroom deputy clerk for judicial in camera consideration are treated as having been returned to the moving parties. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ELIZABETH SAMUELS,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

No. 2:13-cv-00713-GEB-DAD

v.

ORDER DENYING PLANITIFF’S
SEALING REQUEST

OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS
CONTAINER, INC.,

11
Defendant*.
12
13
14

On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff submitted for in camera

15

consideration a Request to Seal Documents, a proposed sealing

16

order,

17

sought to be sealed are referenced in a publicly filed Notice of

18

Request to Seal Documents as “[p]artially redacted spreadsheets

19

marked ‘Confidential’ listing bottles manufactured at Defendant’s

20

Tracy California plant during the years 2008 through 2012 and

21

Bates

22

through OB03488.” (Not. of Req. to Seal 1:25-28, ECF No. 35.)

and

the

stamped

documents

OB03440

sought

through

to

be

OB03450

sealed.

and

The

OB3474

documents

—

OB03474

23

Plaintiff “requests that the [referenced] documents be

24

filed under seal” as Exhibit 1 to her opposition to Defendant’s

25

pending

26

produced in discovery in this action pursuant to a Stipulated

summary

judgment

motion,

arguing

the

documents

“were

27
*

28

The caption has been amended according to the automatic dismissal of Doe
Defendants. (See Status Order 2:1-4, ECF No. 11.)

1

1

Protective

2

[Defendant’s] proprietary interests.” (Pl.’s Req. to Seal 1:27-

3

2:9.) Plaintiff further argues that “[p]ublic access to these

4

documents would reveal a legitimate trade secret.” (Id. at 2:4-

5

5.)

6

Order,”

Plaintiff

and

“disclosure

neither

[thereof]

discusses

the

will

compromise

applicable

sealing

7

standard in her Request to Seal Documents, nor demonstrates that

8

it has been met. See E.D. Cal. 141(b) (“The ‘Request to Seal

9

Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or other authority for

10

sealing

11

attached to a dispositive motion or one that is presented at

12

trial must articulate ‘compelling reasons’ in favor of sealing.”

13

Williams v. U.S. Bank Ass’n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 604 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

14

(quoting Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,

15

1178 (9th Cir. 2006)).

.

16

.

.

.”).

“[A]

party

seeking

to

seal

a

[document]

20

[Plaintiff] cannot provide the compelling
reasons necessary to justify the . . .
sealing of [the referenced documents] with a
few generalized, sweeping sentences. [She]
needed (and failed) to specifically address
why each document contained [proprietary]
information of such a compelling nature as to
overcome the strong presumption of public
access.

21

In re LDK Solar Secs. Litig., No. C 07-05182 WHA, 2010 WL 724809,

22

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2010). Therefore, the sealing request is

23

DENIED.

17
18
19

24

Further, since Local Rule 141(e)(1) prescribes that if

25

a sealing

26

will

27

sealing has been denied,” the documents emailed to the courtroom

28

deputy clerk for judicial in camera consideration are treated as

return

“[r]equest is denied in full or in part, the Clerk
to

the

submitting

party

2

the

documents

for

which

1

having been returned to the moving parties. United States v.

2

Baez–Alcaino,

3

(indicating that when a judge denies a sealing request the party

4

submitting the request then decides how to proceed in light of

5

the ruling).

6

Dated:

718

F.

Supp.

1503,

December 9, 2014

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1507

(M.D.

Fla.

1989)