Yeoman et al v. Ikea U.S.A. West, Inc. et al

Filing 141

ORDER: The Motion to File Documents Under Seal Pursuant to Stipulated Protective Order (Doc. 133 ) remains pending before the Court. Defendant shall file supplemental materials in support of the request to seal no later than ten (10) days from the date this Order is filed. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 1/15/2014. (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

REID YEOMAN and RITA
MEDELLIN, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated

CASE NO. 11cv701 WQH
(BGS)
ORDER

Plaintiffs,

vs.
IKEA U.S. WEST, INC.; DOES 1-50,
inclusive,

Defendants.

18 HAYES, Judge:
On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff Rita Medellin filed a Motion to File Documents
19
20 Under Seal Pursuant to Stipulated Protective Order. (ECF No. 133). Medellin seeks
21 the permission of the Court to file under seal the unredacted Exhibit ‘F’ attached to the
22 Declaration of Gene J. Stonebarger In Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to
23 Exclude Ikea’s “Process for Entering Zip Codes At the Register.” Id. at 1. Medellin
24 seeks the Court’s permission pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 16)
25 because the evidence quoted in the Declaration was designated “Confidential” by
26 Defendant. Id. at 2. Plaintiff states that she “cannot articulate good cause for sealing
27 the unredacted documents, but submits such documents for sealing pending good cause
28 shown by Defendant.” Id. at 2.
-1-

11cv701 WQH (BGS)

1

“Historically, courts have recognized a general right to inspect and copy public

2 records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City
3 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quotation omitted).
4 Except for documents that are traditionally kept secret, there is “a strong presumption
5 in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d
6 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). “A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the
7 burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the compelling reasons
8 standard. That is, the party must articulate compelling reasons supported by specific
9 factual findings, ... that outweigh the general history of access and the public policies
10 favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the judicial process.”
11 Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-79 (quotation omitted). The presumed right to access to
12 court proceedings and documents can be overcome “only by an overriding right or
13 interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is
14 narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Oregonian Publ’g Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 920
15 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1990) (quotation omitted).
16

Plaintiff has not satisfied the “compelling reasons standard” as to the document

17 she seeks to file under seal. In the absence of “compelling reasons,” the Court cannot
18 seal the document. The Court will not deny the Motion to File Documents Under Seal
19 Pursuant to Stipulated Protective Order without providing the Defendant with an
20 opportunity to meet the burden required to seal the document at issue.
21

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to File Documents Under Seal

22 Pursuant to Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 133) remains pending before the
23 Court. Defendant shall file supplemental materials in support of the request to seal no
24 later than ten (10) days from the date this Order is filed.
25 DATED: January 15, 2014
26
27

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

28
-2-

11cv701 WQH (BGS)