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

Filing 232

ORDER Granting 170 192 212 Motions to Seal. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 8/18/2014. (rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

12

REID YEOMAN and RITA
MEDELLIN, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated,

13

Plaintiffs,

11

14
15
16

v.
IKEA U.S.A WEST, INC. and
DOES 1-25, Inclusive,

Case No. 11-cv-00701-BAS(BGS)
CLASS ACTION
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS
TO SEAL
(ECF Nos. 170, 192 and 212)

Defendant.

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

Pending before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiff Rita Medellin
(“Plaintiff”) to file documents under seal pursuant to a stipulated protective order.
An Order Regarding Confidential and Trade Secret Information was issued in this
case on August 29, 2011. (ECF No. 21 (“Protective Order”).) Plaintiff seeks to file
several documents under seal pursuant to the Protective Order in support of her
motions in limine.

Plaintiff contends that the documents contain information

designated “Confidential” by Defendant IKEA U.S. West, Inc. (“Defendant”).
(ECF No. 170 at p. 1; ECF No. 192 at p. 2; ECF No. 212 at p. 1.) Plaintiff asserts
that she cannot articulate good cause for sealing the unredacted documents, but
submits such documents for sealing pending good cause shown by Defendant.

–1–

11cv701

1

(ECF No. 170 at p. 1; ECF No. 192 at p. 2; ECF No. 212 at p. 1.)

2

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

3

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’”

4

Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006)

5

(citing Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n. 7 (1978)).

6

“Unless a particular court record is one ‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong

7

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”

8

Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). Parties seeking to

9

seal judicial records relating to dispositive motions bear the burden of overcoming

10

the presumption with “compelling reasons” that outweigh the general history of

11

access and the public policies favoring disclosure. Id. at 1178–79.

Id. (citing Foltz v. State

12

Records attached to non-dispositive motions, however, are not subject to the

13

strong presumption of access. Id. at 1179. Because the documents attached to non-

14

dispositive motions “are often unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the

15

underlying cause of action,” parties moving to seal must meet the lower “good

16

cause” standard of Rule 26(c).

17

protective order is not itself sufficient to show good cause for sealing particular

18

documents. See Foltz., 331 F.3d at 1133 (“[A] party seeking the protection of the

19

court via a blanket protective order typically does not make a ‘good cause’ showing

20

required by Rule 26(c) with respect to any particular document.”); see also

21

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (requiring a “particularized showing” of good cause);

22

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).

Id. (internal quotations omitted).

A blanket

23

The Protective Order in this case prohibits “[b]lanket designation of

24

documents or information as Confidential without regard to specific contents of

25

each document or piece of information.” (Protective Order at ¶ 7.) Rather, “[t]he

26

designation of any material as ‘Confidential’ pursuant to th[e Protective] Order

27

shall constitute the verification of the Designating Party and its counsel that the

28

material constitutes Confidential Information,” which is defined to mean all
–2–

11cv701

1

“documents and information provided in discovery that is Confidential pursuant to

2

applicable law.” (Id. at ¶¶ 3, 7.)

3

The Court has considered each of the documents the parties have designated

4

for sealing and, for good cause appearing, GRANTS Plaintiff’s motions to seal

5

(ECF Nos. 170, 192 and 212). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the

6

following documents shall be filed under seal:

7

(1)

Unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Points and

8

Authorities in Support of Motion In Limine No. 4 to Exclude

9

Witnesses Not Disclosed During Discovery;

10

(2)

Exhibits ‘Q’ and ‘S’ to the Declaration of Gene J. Stonebarger in

11

Support of Plaintiff’s Motions In Limine Nos. 1 through 5 as Sealed

12

Lodged Proposed Documents with this Motion;

13

(3)

Unredacted Declaration of Gene J. Stonebarger in Support of

14

Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant IKEA U.S. West, Inc.’s Motion In

15

Limine #1 to Bifurcate Trial;

16

(4)

Unredacted Exhibit ‘C’ attached to the Declaration of Gene J.

17

Stonebarger in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant IKEA

18

U.S. West, Inc.’s Motion In Limine # 1 to Bifurcate Trial;

19

(5)

Plaintiff’s Unredacted Opposition to Defendant IKEA U.S. West,

20

Inc.’s Renewed Motion In Limine #2 to Exclude IKEA’s “Process for

21

Entering ZIP Codes at the Register” (IKEA 000286);

22

(6)

Unredacted Exhibit ‘A’ attached to the Declaration of Gene J.

23

Stonebarger In Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant IKEA

24

U.S. West, Inc.’s Renewed Motion In Limine #2 to Exclude IKEA’s

25

“Process for Entering ZIP Codes at the Register” (IKEA 000286);

26

(7)

Unredacted Exhibit ‘F’ attached to the Declaration of Gene J.

27

Stonebarger In Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant IKEA

28

U.S. West, Inc.’s Renewed Motion In Limine #2 to Exclude IKEA’s
–3–

11cv701

“Process for Entering ZIP Codes at the Register” (IKEA 000286);

1
2

(8)

Unredacted Exhibit ‘G’ attached to the Declaration of Gene J.

3

Stonebarger In Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant IKEA

4

U.S. West, Inc.’s Renewed Motion In Limine #2 to Exclude IKEA’s

5

“Process for Entering ZIP Codes at the Register” (IKEA 000286);

6

(9)

Unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of Motion In

7

Limine No. 4 to Exclude Witnesses Not Disclosed During Discovery;

8

and

9

(10) Exhibits ‘2’ and ‘3’ to the Declaration of Gene J. Stonebarger In

10

Support of Reply in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine No. 4 to

11

Exclude Witnesses Not Disclosed During Discovery.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

DATED: August 18, 2014

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–4–

11cv701