Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00713/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00713-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

1 

2 

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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ELIZABETH SAMUELS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS 

CONTAINER, INC., 

Defendant*

. 

No. 2:13-cv-00713-GEB-DAD 

ORDER DENYING PLANITIFF’S 

SEALING REQUEST 

On December 4, 2014, Plaintiff submitted for in camera 

consideration a Request to Seal Documents, a proposed sealing 

order, and the documents sought to be sealed. The documents 

sought to be sealed are referenced in a publicly filed Notice of 

Request to Seal Documents as “[p]artially redacted spreadsheets 

marked ‘Confidential’ listing bottles manufactured at Defendant’s 

Tracy California plant during the years 2008 through 2012 and 

Bates stamped OB03440 through OB03450 and OB3474 — OB03474 

through OB03488.” (Not. of Req. to Seal 1:25-28, ECF No. 35.) 

Plaintiff “requests that the [referenced] documents be 

filed under seal” as Exhibit 1 to her opposition to Defendant’s 

pending summary judgment motion, arguing the documents “were 

produced in discovery in this action pursuant to a Stipulated 

 

*

 The caption has been amended according to the automatic dismissal of Doe 

Defendants. (See Status Order 2:1-4, ECF No. 11.) 

Case 2:13-cv-00713-GEB-DAD Document 52 Filed 12/09/14 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

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 

2 

Protective Order,” and “disclosure [thereof] will compromise 

[Defendant’s] proprietary interests.” (Pl.’s Req. to Seal 1:27-

2:9.) Plaintiff further argues that “[p]ublic access to these 

documents would reveal a legitimate trade secret.” (Id. at 2:4-

5.) 

Plaintiff neither discusses the applicable sealing 

standard in her Request to Seal Documents, nor demonstrates that 

it has been met. See E.D. Cal. 141(b) (“The ‘Request to Seal 

Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or other authority for 

sealing . . . .”). “[A] party seeking to seal a [document] 

attached to a dispositive motion or one that is presented at 

trial must articulate ‘compelling reasons’ in favor of sealing.” 

Williams v. U.S. Bank Ass’n, 290 F.R.D. 600, 604 (E.D. Cal. 2013) 

(quoting Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178 (9th Cir. 2006)). 

[Plaintiff] cannot provide the compelling 

reasons necessary to justify the . . . 

sealing of [the referenced documents] with a 

few generalized, sweeping sentences. [She] 

needed (and failed) to specifically address 

why each document contained [proprietary] 

information of such a compelling nature as to 

overcome the strong presumption of public 

access. 

In re LDK Solar Secs. Litig., No. C 07-05182 WHA, 2010 WL 724809, 

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 1, 2010). Therefore, the sealing request is 

DENIED. 

 Further, since Local Rule 141(e)(1) prescribes that if 

a sealing “[r]equest is denied in full or in part, the Clerk 

will return to the submitting party the documents for which 

sealing has been denied,” the documents emailed to the courtroom 

deputy clerk for judicial in camera consideration are treated as 

Case 2:13-cv-00713-GEB-DAD Document 52 Filed 12/09/14 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

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 

having been returned to the moving parties. United States v. 

Baez–Alcaino, 718 F. Supp. 1503, 1507 (M.D. Fla. 1989) 

(indicating that when a judge denies a sealing request the party 

submitting the request then decides how to proceed in light of 

the ruling). 

Dated: December 9, 2014 

 

Case 2:13-cv-00713-GEB-DAD Document 52 Filed 12/09/14 Page 3 of 3