Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01996/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01996-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

1

17cv1996-BAS(MSB)

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

MARSHA WRIGHT,

Plaintiff,

v.

OLD GRINGO, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv1996-BAS(MSB)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO SEAL RE: EXHIBITS B, C, 

AND D, ATTACHED TO MEMORANDUM 

OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 

SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE 

PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT TESTIMONY AND 

REPORT [ECF NO. 222]

Defendants filed a “Motion to Seal Re: Exhibits B, C, and D, Attached to 

Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s 

Expert Testimony and Report” on January 9, 2020. (See ECF No. 222.) In their motion, 

Defendants asks the Court to seal three expert reports of Plaintiff’s expert, Joshua

Vanetti, because they “contain materials designated ‘confidential’ pursuant to the 

protective order (ECF 87) in place in this case.” (Id. at 2.) 

Materials obtained through discovery can be included under seal with nondispositive motions if the requesting party demonstrates “good cause.” Kamakana v. 

City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “When a court grants a 

protective order for information produced during discovery, it already has determined 

Case 3:17-cv-01996-BAS-MSB Document 229 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
2

17cv1996-BAS(MSB)

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

that ‘good cause’ exists to protect this information from being disclosed to the public by 

balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Phillips ex rel. 

Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the 

protective order and makes clear that a motion to file under seal “must be narrowly 

tailored to seek sealing only of the confidential or privileged material.” (ECF No. 87 at 

¶13 (emphasis in original).) 

After reviewing Defendants’ motion and the expert reports they ask to file under 

seal, it appears to the Court that Defendants have not demonstrated there is good 

cause to seal Plaintiff’s expert reports in their entirety. Defendants have not 

demonstrated that the expert reports themselves are confidential under the terms of 

the protective order, and it appears that a substantial part of Plaintiff’s expert reports 

are not confidential, such as Mr. Vanetti’s background and qualifications, the 

procedures he used in formulating his opinion, data points from other companies he 

used, and his opinion itself. The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion because it 

finds that sealing the expert reports entirely is not justified or narrowly tailored to 

protect the sensitive data therein. 

Accordingly, Defendants should resubmit their motion to file under seal no later 

than January 31, 2020, redacting only the portions of the document for which there

exists good cause for sealing.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 28, 2020

 

1 Since the sealed lodged document is already on the docket at ECF No. 223, Defendants are asked to 

file two separate documents on CM/ECF: (1) their motion to file under seal, and (2) their redacted copy 

of Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Testimony and Report, Accompanying MPA, and 

Attached Exhibits. 

Case 3:17-cv-01996-BAS-MSB Document 229 Filed 01/28/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2