Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01875/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01875-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 367
Nature of Suit: TORTS - Personal Injury - Health Care/Pharmaceutical Personal Injury/Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332pi Diversity-Personal Injury

---

1 

14-cv-1875-AJB-AGS 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANN MARIE ESTRADA, and JOSE 

ESTRADA 

Plaintiffs,

v. 

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, 

INC., TEVA WOMEN’S HEALTH, INC., 

and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 14-cv-1875-AJB-AGS 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 

MOTIONS TO FILE DOCUMENTS 

UNDER SEAL 

(Doc. Nos. 74, 92) 

 Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs Ann Marie and Jose Estrada’s (“Plaintiffs”) 

motions to file documents under seal. (Doc. Nos. 74, 92.) As explained more fully below, 

the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions. 

Courts have historically recognized a “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). “Unless a particular court record is one 

‘traditionally kept secret,’ a ‘strong presumption in favor of access’ is the starting point.” 

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz 

v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). In order to 

overcome this strong presumption, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must articulate 

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AJB-AGS Document 96 Filed 09/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

14-cv-1875-AJB-AGS 

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

justifications for sealing that outweigh the public policies favoring disclosure. See 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79. “In turn, the court must ‘conscientiously balance[] the 

competing interests’ of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 

secret.” Id. at 1179 (citation omitted). 

“After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal certain judicial records, 

it must ‘base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its 

ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.’” Id. (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 

49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). However, where the material is, at most, “tangentially 

related” to the merits of the case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good 

cause.” Ctr. For Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC., 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). 

Here, Plaintiffs seek to seal: (1) Exhibit H—Brenda Angelo’s deposition; (2) Exhibit 

I—the Medwatch report for Mrs. Estrada’s ParaGard; (3) Exhibit J—the deposition of 

Defendants’ Person Most Qualified; (4) Exhibit K—ParaGard’s adverse event reports, 

Medwatch forms, and emails related to such reports; and (5) Exhibit L—Thomas Mehs’ 

deposition. (Doc. No. 74.) Plaintiffs seek to seal these documents on the grounds that 

Defendants have declared that these documents contain or reference confidential 

information.1

 (Id. at 2.) 

 On June 5, 2017, Defendants filed their response to Plaintiffs’ motion where they 

detailed that the documents at issue were produced under a protective order. (Doc. No 82 

at 2.) Specifically, the documents contain internal investigation reports, internal 

communications, and audit reports that were marked confidential. (Id. at 4.) 

                                                                

1

 Defendants claim that on May 18, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their opposition to its motion for 

summary judgment. Attached to this document was the Declaration of Lauren A. Welling, 

a confidential document subject to a protective order. (Doc. No. 82 at 3.) On May 19, 2017, 

Defendants notified Plaintiffs’ counsel of this violation. (Id.) Later that day, Plaintiffs filed 

their notice of withdrawal of the confidential documents. (Id.) Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed 

this motion to seal. (Id.) 

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AJB-AGS Document 96 Filed 09/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

14-cv-1875-AJB-AGS 

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

After a careful review of the documents, the Court finds Plaintiffs’ motion to seal 

warranted. First, the Court notes that motions to seal documents that contain information 

that could competitively hurt parties in a lawsuit is routinely granted. See Apple Inc. v. 

Samsung Elec. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598 

(the court may ensure its records are not used as “sources of business information that 

might harm a litigant’s competitive standing”). Additionally, case law makes clear that 

documents that were given protective designations under a protective order are already 

determined to satisfy the “good cause” standard as they are meant “to protect [the] 

information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against 

the need for confidentiality.” Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 

2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal 

is GRANTED. 

Plaintiffs also seek to seal documents marked “confidential” in connection with their 

supplemental brief. (Doc. No. 92.) Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the Court seal 

Exhibits 1–57 in support of Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment. (See generally id.) For the same reasons as above, the Court similarly finds a

motion to seal the foregoing exhibits justified as the interests in sealing outweigh the 

public’s need to access confidential medical records and consumer information. 

Consequently, Plaintiffs’ second motion to seal is also GRANTED. 

CONCLUSION 

 As explained more thoroughly above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motions to 

seal. (Doc. Nos. 74, 92.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 18, 2017 

Case 3:14-cv-01875-AJB-AGS Document 96 Filed 09/18/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3