Hohenberg v. Ferrero USA, Inc

Filing 65

ORDER granting 57 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge Marilyn L. Huff on 8/17/2011. (leh)(jrd)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

In re FERRERO LITIGATION

CASE NO. 11-CV-205 H (CAB)
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE
APPLICATION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

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

On August 15, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for an order allowing them
to file documents under seal.

(Doc. No. 57.)

Plaintiffs seek to seal the unredacted

memorandum in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Exhibits 1-4, 10, 13-17,
20, 22, 24-26, and 28-34 to the Declaration of Gregory S. Weston, as well as the unredacted
ex parte application to seal documents.
“Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records
and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cnty of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc.,
435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). Except for documents that are traditionally kept secret, there
is “a strong presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79. “A
party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden of overcoming this strong
presumption by meeting the compelling reasons standard. That is, the party must articulate

28
-1-

11cv205

1 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings, ... that outweigh the general history
2 of access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in
3 understanding the judicial process.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (citations and quotation
4 marks omitted). The presumed right to access to court proceedings and documents can be
5 overcome “only by an overriding right or interest ‘based on findings that closure is essential
6 to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.’” Oregonian Publ’g
7 Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir.1990) (quoting Press-Enterprise
8 Co. v. Superior Court, 446 U.S. 501, 510 (1985)).
9

The Court concludes that good cause exists to seal the requested documents.

10 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to file documents in support
11 of their motion for class certification under seal.
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 DATED: August 17, 2011
14

______________________________

15

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

11cv205