Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00506/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-00506-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 385
Nature of Suit: Property Damage - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Contract Default

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY VINYARDS,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

NATURAL PLANT PROTECTION, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:20-cv-00506-NONE-JLT

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING

REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 

(Doc. 41)

The plaintiff seeks to seal a document upon which it relies to oppose the defense motion to 

exclude testimony of the plaintiff’s expert. (Docs. 39, 40) The plaintiff sought the permission of the 

defense on the public docket by the defense refused because it reveals “confidential and/or private 

information of third parties; trade secrets; and other valuable research, development, commercial, 

financial, technical and/or proprietary information.” (Doc. 41 at 2)

The request to seal documents is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The 

Rule permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 

oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade secret or other 

confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in 

a specified way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view 

after balancing “the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. 

Case 1:20-cv-00506-JLT-CDB Document 45 Filed 11/03/21 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

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 

Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)).

Generally, documents filed in civil cases are to be available to the public. EEOC v. Erection 

Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th 

Cir.2003). The Court may seal documents only when the compelling reasons for doing so outweigh 

the public’s right of access. EEOC at 170. In evaluating the request, the Court considers the “public 

interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in 

improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” 

Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986).

Based upon the showing that the document at issue, identified as ALNA 001860, reveals 

confidential information that should be protected from public view, the plaintiff’s request to file this 

document under seal is GRANTED. Within three court days, the plaintiff SHALL submit the 

document by email to ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-00506-JLT-CDB Document 45 Filed 11/03/21 Page 2 of 2