Pacific Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Wartsila Defense, Inc. et al

Filing 47

ORDER Denying 44 Motion to Seal without Prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nita L. Stormes on 4/25/2018. (mxn)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

PACIFIC MARINE PROPELLERS,
INC.,

15
16

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 17cv555-BEN (NLS)

v.
WARTSILA DEFENSE, INC., et al.,

[ECF No. 44]

Defendants.

17
18

On April 20, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion for an Order Permitting Plaintiff

19

to File Documents Under Seal. ECF No. 44. Specifically, they seek to file under seal

20

Exhibits 4 and 6 to the Declaration of Nathaniel R. Smith in Support of Joint Motion for

21

Discovery Determination No. 4 (ECF No. 46). Id.

22

A party requesting that the court seal materials attached to a non-dispositive

23

motion must make a particularized showing of good cause. Kamakana v. City and Cnty.

24

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, the parties have given no reason

25

the exhibits require sealing other than that Plaintiff designated the documents as

26

“CONFIDENTIAL” when they were produced. ECF No. 44-1 ¶¶ 3-4. This reason is

27

itself not sufficient to constitute good cause. See Durham v. Halibrand Performance

28

Corp., No. 14CV1151 DMS (JLB), 2014 WL 12520130, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2014)
1
17cv555-BEN (NLS)

1

(“That a document is designated confidential pursuant to a protective order is of little

2

weight when it comes to sealing documents which are filed with the Court.”); Cortina v.

3

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 13-CV-02054-BAS-DHB, 2016 WL 4556455, at *1 (S.D. Cal.

4

Sept. 1, 2016) (“[P]arty’s designation of documents as ‘confidential’ pursuant to such

5

[protective] order, is not itself sufficient to show good cause.”); San Diego Comic

6

Convention v. Dan Farr Prods., No. 14-CV-1865 AJB (JMA), 2018 WL 1744536, at *3

7

(S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018) (“Indeed, some district courts have declined to seal documents

8

when the sole basis for the request is a protective order that covers them.”).

9

Thus, the Court DENIES the motion to seal WITHOUT PREJUDICE to parties

10

refiling the motion within 7 days of this order. If the parties wish to refile, they are

11

instructed to include compelling and particularized reasons why the exhibits need to be

12

sealed.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 25, 2018

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
17cv555-BEN (NLS)