Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00309/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00309-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

07cv309

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYNTHES (U.S.A.), a Pennsylvania

partnership,

Plaintiff,

v.

G.M. DOS REIS JR. IND. COM. DE

EQUIP. MEDICO A/K/A GMREIS, a

Brazilian corporation,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07-CV-309-L(AJB)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO FILE

DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

On February 19, 2008, Plaintiff filed Synthes’ Ex Parte Application to File Opposition to

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Under Seal. The sole reason

given for sealing portions of Plaintiff’s opposition memorandum and deposition transcript in

support thereof is that the portion of the deposition transcript was designated as “Confidential --

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by Defendants pursuant to a Stipulated Protective Order. The court’s

docket, however, does not reflect any protective order providing for confidentiality of any

documents or information. Even if such a protective order had been filed, it would not suffice. 

The party seeking to seal a document must at the very least meet the good cause standard

set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331

F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d

1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Even if the information is subject to a typical discovery protective

Case 3:07-cv-00309-L-AJB Document 44 Filed 02/20/08 Page 1 of 2
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

07cv309

2

order, such orders are usually prospective in nature and are necessarily overinclusive. See

Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the

magistrate judge does not have the occasion to engage in the Rule 26(c) good cause analysis

prior to signing the order. This is not uncommon. “[A] party seeking the protection of the court

via a blanket protective order typically does not make a ‘good cause’ showing required by Rule

26(c) with respect to any particular document.” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133. Because the parties do

not make the requisite showing when the protective order is entered, they must do so when they

seek to comply with the protective order by requesting the court to file documents under seal. 

Under Rule 26(c), “[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party . . .

from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden or expense, including one or more

of the following: . . . (G) requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research,

development, or commercial information not be revealed or be reveled only in a specified way . .

..” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). “Any such order . . . requires that the court’s determination identify

and discuss the factors it considered in its good cause examination . . ..” Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “A party asserting good cause bears the burden,

for each particular document it seeks to protect, of showing that specific prejudice or harm will

result if no protective order is granted.” Id. “[B]road allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by

specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman, 966

F.2d at 476.

For the foregoing reasons, the Ex Parte Application is DENIED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 20, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. ANTHONY J. BATTAGLIA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00309-L-AJB Document 44 Filed 02/20/08 Page 2 of 2