Cones v. Parexel International Corporation

Filing 90

ORDER Denying 86 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 4/10/2018. (mxn)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SCHOULEE CONES, et al.,

Case No.: 3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS
Plaintiffs,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL [Doc. 86]

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, et al.,

15
16

Defendants.

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

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file documents under seal [Doc.
120].) Sealing court records implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public
records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner
Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). The lack of opposition to a motion to
seal therefore does not automatically resolve it. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins.
Co., 331 F.3d 1128, 1130 & passim (9th Cir. 2003). Aside from “grand jury transcripts
and warrant materials in the midst of a pre-indictment investigation,” a strong
presumption applies in favor of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City and
County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, a party seeking
to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of public
access by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178.
1
3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS

1

Plaintiff’s sole argument for filing the documents at issue under seal is the fact that

2

these documents were designated as confidential pursuant to the terms of a protective

3

order. That a document is designated confidential pursuant to a protective order is of

4

little weight when it comes to sealing documents which are filed with the Court. See San

5

Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.(Saldivar), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999);

6

Beckman Indus. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th Cir. 1992); Confederated

7

Tribes of Siletz Indians of Or. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 340 F. Supp. 2d 1118, 1121 (D. Or.

8

2003). By nature, protective orders are over inclusive, see Beckman, 966 F.2d at 476,

9

because prior to signing, the judge typically does not have the opportunity to analyze

10

whether any particular document should be sealed. See San Jose Mercury News, 187

11

F.3d at 1103; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133. Whether a document designated as confidential

12

pursuant to a protective order should be sealed must therefore usually be determined de

13

novo. See Weyerhaeuser, 340 F. Supp. 2d at 1121. Plaintiffs' reliance on the protective

14

order is insufficient to meet the compelling reasons standard for sealing court filings

15

related to a class certification motion.

16

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The exhibits, which

17

were lodged under seal, will not be considered. This denial is without prejudice to refiling

18

the exhibits without sealing or filing a renewed motion to seal that actually presents a

19

proper argument as to why there are compelling reasons to deny public access. Any new

20

application to seal must be filed by April 14, 2018, include the requisite showing, and

21

designate specific portions of the exhibits for sealing.

22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

Dated: April 10, 2018

24
25
26
27
28
2
3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS