Estrada et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al

Filing 96

ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' Motions to File Documents Under Seal (Doc Nos. 74 , 92 . Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 9/18/2017. (lrf)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

Case No.: 14-cv-1875-AJB-AGS

ANN MARIE ESTRADA, and JOSE
ESTRADA

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL

Plaintiffs,
v.

16
17

(Doc. Nos. 74, 92)

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA,
INC., TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, INC.,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants.

15

18
19

Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Ann Marie and Jose Estrada’s (“Plaintiffs”)

20

motions to file documents under seal. (Doc. Nos. 74, 92.) As explained more fully below,

21

the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions.

22

Courts have historically recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public

23

records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner

24

Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). “Unless a particular court record is one

25

‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.”

26

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

27

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to

28

overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate
1
14-cv-1875-AJB-AGS

1

justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See

2

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the

3

competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records

4

secret.” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted).

5

“After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records,

6

it must ‘base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its

7

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser,

8

49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). However, where the material is, at most, “tangentially

9

related” to the merits of the case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good

10

cause.” Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC., 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016).

11

Here, Plaintiffs seek to seal: (1) Exhibit H—Brenda Angelo’s deposition; (2) Exhibit

12

I—the Medwatch report for Mrs. Estrada’s ParaGard; (3) Exhibit J—the deposition of

13

Defendants’ Person Most Qualified; (4) Exhibit K—ParaGard’s adverse event reports,

14

Medwatch forms, and emails related to such reports; and (5) Exhibit L—Thomas Mehs’

15

deposition. (Doc. No. 74.) Plaintiffs seek to seal these documents on the grounds that

16

Defendants have declared that these documents contain or reference confidential

17

information.1 (Id. at 2.)

18

On June 5, 2017, Defendants filed their response to Plaintiffs’ motion where they

19

detailed that the documents at issue were produced under a protective order. (Doc. No 82

20

at 2.) Specifically, the documents contain internal investigation reports, internal

21

communications, and audit reports that were marked confidential. (Id. at 4.)

22
23
24

25

1

26
27
28

Defendants claim that on May 18, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to its motion for
summary judgment. Attached to this document was the Declaration of Lauren A. Welling,
a confidential document subject to a protective order. (Doc. No. 82 at 3.) On May 19, 2017,
Defendants notified Plaintiffs’ counsel of this violation. (Id.) Later that day, Plaintiffs filed
their notice of withdrawal of the confidential documents. (Id.) Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed
this motion to seal. (Id.)
2
14-cv-1875-AJB-AGS

1

After a careful review of the documents, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ motion to seal

2

warranted. First, the Court notes that motions to seal documents that contain information

3

that could competitively hurt parties in a lawsuit is routinely granted. See Apple Inc. v.

4

Samsung Elec. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598

5

(the court may ensure its records are not used as “sources of business information that

6

might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). Additionally, case law makes clear that

7

documents that were given protective designations under a protective order are already

8

determined to satisfy the “good cause” standard as they are meant “to protect [the]

9

information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against

10

the need for confidentiality.” Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.

11

2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal

12

is GRANTED.

13

Plaintiffs also seek to seal documents marked “confidential” in connection with their

14

supplemental brief. (Doc. No. 92.) Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the Court seal

15

Exhibits 1–57 in support of Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary

16

judgment. (See generally id.) For the same reasons as above, the Court similarly finds a

17

motion to seal the foregoing exhibits justified as the interests in sealing outweigh the

18

public’s need to access confidential medical records and consumer information.

19

Consequently, Plaintiffs’ second motion to seal is also GRANTED.

20
21
22

CONCLUSION
As explained more thoroughly above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions to
seal. (Doc. Nos. 74, 92.)

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: September 18, 2017

26
27
28
3
14-cv-1875-AJB-AGS