Unico Mechanical Corp. et al v. Harris et al

Filing 40

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 5/11/2016 ORDERING The 4/27/2016 request to seal 37 is DENIED; the Clerk of the Court is direct to file the documents sought to be filed under seal on the public case docket on 5/16/2016; the parti es have until 4:00 PM on 5/13/2016, to file a motion for reconsideration before the assigned District Judge, which will stay the filing of the documents on the public case docket; Defendants' 2/26/2016 motion to compel 31 is GRANTED; and Plaintiffs shall produce the responsive documents within 14 days of the date of this order.(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13

UNICO MECHANICAL CORP, a
California Corporation, and ALFRED
CONHAGEN, INC. OF CALIFORNIA, a
California Corporation,

ORDER

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

No. 2:15-cv-0996 JAM AC (TEMP)

Plaintiffs,
v.
KAMALA HARRIS, in her official
capacity of Attorney General for the State
of California; CHRISTINE BAKER, in her
official capacity as the Director of the
California Department of Industrial
Relations; DIANE RAVNIK, in her official
capacity as the Chief of the California
Division of Apprenticeship Standards; and
MATT RODRIGUEZ, in his official
capacity as California Secretary for
Environmental Protection,
Defendants.
STATE BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL
OF CALIFORNIA, AFL-CIO,
Intervenor-Defendant
On May 11, 2016, this matter came before the undersigned for hearing of defendants’

27

motion to compel and notice of request to seal. Attorney Jonathan Barker appeared

28

telephonically on behalf of the plaintiffs. Attorney John Killeen appeared in person on behalf of
1

1

the defendants.

2

As discussed at the May 11, 2016 hearing, the court has reviewed the documents sought to

3

be filed under seal and finds that neither party has demonstrated good cause for filing those

4

documents under seal.1 See Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092,

5

1097-1101 (9th Cir. 2016); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.

6

2003). Moreover, with respect to defendants’ motion to compel, the court finds that the discovery

7

sought is relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).

8
9

Accordingly, upon consideration of the arguments on file and at the hearing, and for the
reasons set forth on the record at the hearing and above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1. The April 27, 2016 request to seal (ECF No. 37) is denied;

11

2. The Clerk of the Court is direct to file the documents sought to be filed under seal on

12

the public case docket on May 16, 2016;

13

3. The parties have until 4:00 p.m. on May 13, 2016, to file a motion for reconsideration

14

before the assigned District Judge, which will stay the filing of the documents on the public case

15

docket;

16

4. Defendants’ February 26, 2016 motion to compel (ECF No. 31) is granted; and

17

5. Plaintiffs shall produce the responsive documents within fourteen days of the date of

18

this order.

19

DATED: May 11, 2016

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

At the May 11, 2016 hearing, plaintiffs’ counsel was unable to provide an argument in support
of the filing under seal of many of the documents sought to be filed under seal.
2