Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated

Filing 181

ORDER by Judge Alsup denying 177 Motion to Seal (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/19/2007)

Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated

Doc. 181

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BERNARD PAUL PARRISH, HERBERT ANTHONY ADDERLY, and WALTER ROBERTS III, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS ASSOCIATION and NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE PLAYERS INCORPORATED d/b/a PLAYERS INC, Defendant. / No. C 07-00943 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

Plaintiffs' motion to seal the Third Amended Complaint and exhibits D, F, G, I, J, and O in support thereof is DENIED. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court may seal documents upon a showing of "good cause" by the party seeking to seal the documents. The party asserting good cause "bears the burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted." Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit has made clear that there is a strong presumption in favor of public access to court documents. Kamkana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). It is only after weighing the competing interests of public disclosure and the party who seeks to keep judicial documents secret should a court grant a motion to seal. Ibid. Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden as required by Rule 26(c). No substantive basis has been given by plaintiffs to show good cause for sealing the documents. In addition, plaintiffs may not meet their burden by
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

simply designating the documents as confidential under the protective order. Such circumstances would confer upon the parties the power to designate nearly any document as confidential. For the foregoing reasons, plaintiffs' motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2