In Re Pacific Fertility Center Litigation

Filing 193

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting in part and denying in part 190 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

R. E., et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

ORDER RE: RENEWED
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

v.
PACIFIC FERTILITY CENTER, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 190

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.18-cv-01586-JSC

12
13

The Court is in receipt of Defendants’ renewed administrative motion to seal exhibits

14

submitted with the Declaration of Adam Polk filed in support of Plaintiffs’ opposition to

15

Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and the joinders thereto. (Dkt. No. 190.) The motion is

16

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

17

The motion is GRANTED as to:

18



Exhibit 1: Recitals and Agreement, Articles 1-7, Article 8 Sections 8.1-8.7 and 8.9,

19

Articles 9-12, Article 13 Sections 13.1(b)-(d), Articles 14-16, Exhibits 4.3(h) and

20

12.3

21



Exhibit 5: Paragraphs 3-4, 7, 8(a), 9 and Schedule 4(b)

22



Exhibit 7: Paragraphs 3-4, 7, 8(a), and 9

23

The motion is DENIED as to:

24



Exhibit 5: Paragraphs 5 and 8(b)

25



Exhibit 7: Paragraphs 5 and 8(b)

26

Defendants have failed to demonstrate that this information is confidential and Defendants put

27

these paragraphs at issue through their motions to compel arbitration. See Murphy v. DirecTV,

28

Inc., 724 F.3d 1218, 1233 n.9 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that Best Buy waived any claim of

1

confidentiality by arguing that it was acting as DirectTV’s agent noting that “[t]he agreement, the

2

contents of which are highly probative of the question at hand, makes clear that the companies

3

agreed that exactly the opposite was true”); Orlob-Radford v. Midland Funding LLC, No. 2:15-

4

CV-00307-JLQ, 2016 WL 5859002, at *8 (E.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2016) (denying motion to seal

5

because the motion to compel arbitration “strikes at the heart of Plaintiff’s case: whether Plaintiff

6

may bring her claims in federal court and whether she may bring class action claims” and the

7

documents containing the arbitration agreement were essential to this question).

8

This Order disposes of Docket No. 190.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 25, 2019

12
13
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

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