Gutterglove, Inc. v. Lasell et al

Filing 33

ORDER re 30 Defendants' Request to Seal signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 3/21/2018: IT IS ORDERED that defendants' Request to Seal be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without prejudice to the right of either party to submit a more tailored request, such as redacting a portion of the First Amended Answer and Counterclaims, which specifically states the basis for sealing or redacting this document and why the harm of disclosing that information outweighs public policies favoring disclosure. (Kirksey Smith, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

----oo0oo----

11
12

GUTTERGLOVE, INC., a California
Corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18

Civ. No. 2:17-1372

WBS CKD

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE: REQUEST TO SEAL

v.
WILLIAM LASELL, an individual,
AMERICAN DIE AND ROLLFORMING
INC., a California Corporation,
and ARTESIAN HOME PRODUCTS, a
California Corporation, doing
business as VALOR GUTTER GUARD,
Defendants.

19
20

----oo0oo----

21

Plaintiff Gutterglove, Inc. brought this action against

22
23

defendants William Lasell, American Die and Rollforming, Inc.,

24

and Artesian Home Products doing business as Valor Gutter Guard

25

alleging various claims in connection with defendants’

26

misappropriation of plaintiff’s trade secrets.

27

is defendants’ Request to File Documents Under Seal filed March

28

15, 2018.

(Docket No. 30.)
1

Before the court

1

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the

2

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public

3

access.

4

1178 (9th Cir. 2006).

5

pleading and a related attachment, the party must “articulate

6

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that

7

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

8

favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding

9

the judicial process.”

Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
Where a party seeks to seal a dispositive

Id. at 1178-79 (citations omitted).

The

10

court then must balance the competing interests of the public and

11

the party seeking to keep records secret.

12

Id. at 1179.

Defendants move to seal their First Amended Answer and

13

Counterclaims in its entirety, stating that it contains

14

information that was designated as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY’S

15

EYES ONLY by plaintiff pursuant to the Protective Order in this

16

case.

17

information in the First Amended Answer and Counterclaims should

18

be sealed.

19

Defendants do not give specific reasons why any particular

Here, the Magistrate Judge entered the parties agreed

20

Protective Order to provide special protection from public

21

disclosure for production of confidential, proprietary, or

22

private information.

23

However, the Protective Order explained that “this Stipulated

24

Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential

25

information under seal” and that for each “document . . . sought

26

to be filed or introduced under seal . . . the party seeking

27

protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by

28

specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing

(Protective Order at 1 (Docket No. 29).)

2

1

order.”

2

notice that confidential categorization . . . under the

3

protective order was not a guarantee of confidentiality,

4

especially in the event of a court filing.”

5

F.3d at 1183.

6

public from understanding the basis upon which the court makes

7

its decisions, and defendant fails to explain how public

8

disclosure of the contents of its First Amended Answer and

9

Counterclaims would cause harm to any of the parties, much less

(Id. at 3.)

“Thus, [defendants] should have been on

See Kamakana, 447

Further, sealing this information may prevent the

10

how that harm outweighs public policies favoring disclosure.

11

id. at 1178-79.

12

[protective] order is not a ‘compelling reason’ that rebuts the

13

presumption of access.”

14

See

Accordingly, “the claimed reliance on the

Id. at 1183.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ Request to

15

Seal (Docket No. 30) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED without

16

prejudice to the right of either party to submit a more tailored

17

request, such as redacting a portion of the First Amended Answer

18

and Counterclaims, which specifically states the basis for

19

sealing or redacting this document and why the harm of disclosing

20

that information outweighs public policies favoring disclosure.

21

Dated:

March 21, 2018

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3