Herrera et al v. AllianceOne Receivable Management, Inc. et al

Filing 80

ORDER Denying Plaintiffs' 76 Request to Seal Documents. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 4/6/2016. (rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GILVERTO HERRERA, et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14

ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLE
MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.,

15
16

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 14-CV-1844-BTM (WVG)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
REQUEST TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS
[DOC. NO. 76]

17
18

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Request to Seal Documents. (Doc. No. 76.)

19

In their Request, Plaintiffs fail to provide any information as to what documents they

20

are asking to file under seal. They simply state that they want to “file private

21

documents or to file confidential documents produced pursuant to a protective order.”

22

Id. at 1. Plaintiffs note that they have filed a number of “discovery Requests or

23

Statements” with the Court, and that they intend to file “Motions” that rely on

24

confidential documents produced by Defendant, and “documents” that contain

25

Plaintiffs’ personal and private information. Id.

26

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

27

presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of

28

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto
1

14CV1844

1

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, there is no way for the Court to

2

evaluate whether the documents that Plaintiffs seek to seal are traditionally kept secret,

3

as Plaintiffs have provided no insight into their request.

4

Plaintiffs have failed to show any good cause to grant a request to seal any

5

documents, and therefore, Plaintiffs’ Request is DENIED.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED: April 6, 2016

8
9
10

Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

14CV1844