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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?