Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00393/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00393-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

KRISTI LAURIS, et. al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NOVARTIS AG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00393-LJO-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE 

OF REQUEST TO SEAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(ECF No. 63)

On October 7, 2016, the parties stipulated to a protective order in this action. (ECF No. 

59.) The order addressing the protective order informed the parties that a “party making a 

request to file documents under seal shall be required to show good cause for documents 

attached to a nondispositive motion or compelling reasons for documents attached to a 

dispositive motion.” (Id. at 13 (quoting Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 

(9th Cir. 2009)). On November 9, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a notice of request to seal documents to 

be considered in their motion for discovery. (ECF No. 63.) 

Courts have long recognized a “general right to inspect and copy public records and 

documents, including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 

447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 

597 & n. 7 (1978)). Nevertheless, this access to judicial records is not absolute. Kamakana, 447 

F.3d at 1172. The court has recognized a category of documents that is not subject to the right of 

Case 1:16-cv-00393-SAB Document 64 Filed 11/10/16 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

public access because the documents have “traditionally been kept secret for important policy 

reasons.” Times Mirror Co. v. United States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989). Since 

resolution of disputes on the merits “is at the heart of the interest in ensuring the ‘public’s 

understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events[,] . . . “ ‘compelling 

reasons’ must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.” Kamakana, 

447 F.3d at 1179. However, where the request to seal addresses “private materials unearthed in 

discovery” a different standard applies. Pinto, 605 F.3d at 678. To seal records attached to a 

discovery or non-dispositive motions, the moving party is required to show that good cause 

exists to seal the documents. Id. 

Good cause is a lower standard in which the Court balances the need for discovery 

against the need for confidentiality. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. “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.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). If the court finds that particularized harm will result 

from disclosure of the information it then balances the public and private interests to determine if 

the information should be filed under seal. Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210.

Here, Plaintiffs request to seal merely states that the documents that are sought to be filed 

under seal have been designated as confidential by Defendants and are required to be filed under 

deal by the protective order. However, a blanket protective order does not establish good to file 

documents under seal. Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130. This Court did not make findings of good cause 

as to any document in the litigation and specifically informed the parties that they would be 

required to show good cause or compelling reasons to file any documents under seal. (ECF No. 

59.) 

In order to show good cause to file a document under seal, Plaintiffs must make a 

“particular showing” of good cause for each document sought to be filed under seal. Foltz, 331 

F.3d at 1130. This requires Plaintiff to show the specific harm or prejudice that would arise from 

disclosure of the document. Id. Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating that good 

Case 1:16-cv-00393-SAB Document 64 Filed 11/10/16 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

cause exists to file any document under seal.

Plaintiffs are advised that the Court will only consider the documents addressed in the 

notice to seal in deciding the discovery motion if a second request to seal is filed demonstrating 

good cause for each of the documents which are sought to be filed under seal. If Plaintiffs do not 

file a second request to seal or file a motion in which they do not meet their burden for each 

document, the Court will not consider any documents that are not filed in the record.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiffs’ notice of request to seal documents is DENIED without prejudice;

2. Plaintiffs’ may file a second request to file the documents under seal by noon on 

Monday, November 14, 2016; and 

3. If Plaintiffs do not file a request to seal demonstrating good cause for each 

document or file the documents in the record, these documents will not be 

considered in deciding the motion for discovery.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00393-SAB Document 64 Filed 11/10/16 Page 3 of 3