Cones v. Parexel International Corporation

Filing 94

ORDER Granting Plaintiff's 91 Motion to File Documents Under Seal. Signed by Judge M. James Lorenz on 4/16/2018. (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 GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS
UNDER SEAL [Doc. 91]

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, et al.,

15
16

Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to file documents under
seal. 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

27
28
1
3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS

1

to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of public

2

access by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178.1
Whether a party’s proffered reasons for filing documents under seal are compelling

3
4

is fact specific and left to the “sound discretion of the trial court.” Nixon v. Warner

5

Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978). If public access to a document might harm a

6

litigant’s competitive standing in its business, the Court has discretion to allow a party to

7

file the document under seal. Id. at 598–99. Here, Plaintiff seeks to file under seal

8

documents regarding the management of clinical trials and Defendant’s internal operating

9

policies and procedures. In support of this motion, Plaintiffs submit declaration

10

testimony from Ron Kraus (“Kraus”) one of Defendant’s corporate vice presidents.

11

(Kraus Decl. [Doc. 91-1].) In his declaration, Kraus testifies that Defendant safeguards

12

these documents as confidential because their public disclosure would erode a

13

competitive business advantage in successfully conducting clinical trials of

14

pharmaceutical and medical devices. (Id.) Having reviewed Kraus’ declaration and the

15

underlying documents, the Court finds that public disclosure of these documents might

16

harm Defendant’s competitive standing in its business. The Court therefore GRANTS

17

Plaintiff’s motion to file these documents under seal.

18

//

19

//

20

//

21

//

22
23
Defendant’s argues that the “good cause” standard should govern here because a motion for class
certification is non-dispositive. Defendant’s argument is unpersuasive because, from the fact that a
motion is non-dispositive, it does not follow that the lower “good cause” standard (as opposed to the
default “compelling reasons” standard) applies. Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 809 F.3d
1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Rather, the compelling reasons standard applies to all motions except those
that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Id. at 1101. Defendant has failed to
demonstrate that the present motion for class certification is only tangentially related to the merits of this
case. Indeed, the merits of a plaintiff’s substantive claim(s) are often highly relevant in determining
whether to grant class certification. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 981 (9th Cir. 2011).
1

24
25
26
27
28

2
3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

Dated: April 16, 2018

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS