Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01275/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01275-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Lisa St. Clair and Richard Poulin,

individually and as parents and guardians

of H.P., their minor child, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Nellcor Puritan Bennett LLC,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-10-1275-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This case arises on the parties’ Joint Stipulation Requesting the Filing of

Exhibits Under Seal, doc. 61, requesting an order authorizing Plaintiffs to file under seal 18

specific exhibits which will be attached to Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant Nellcor Puritan

Bennett, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment upon further order of the Court.

(Doc. 59, Exhibits 6-8; 15; 17; 18; 27; 30; 31; 33; 35-41; and 43) The Stipulation indicates

Plaintiffs have already lodged these exhibits under seal pursuant to LRCiv 5.6(d) pending

the Court’s approval. The Court will construe the parties’ Joint Stipulation as a joint motion.

As their authority, the Joint Stipulation cites, of course, “Rule 26(c)(1)(G)

[which] provides that a district court “may, for good cause, issue an order . . . requiring that

a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be

revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” (Id. at 2) In the Ninth Circuit, however,

“good cause” for sealing exhibits used as a part of a summary judgment or other dispositive

motion or response is not the correct and controlling standard.

Case 2:10-cv-01275-LOA Document 65 Filed 08/12/11 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 -

In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit

held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons” are required to seal documents

used in dispositive motions such as motions for summary judgment, just as compelling

reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial. Id. at 1179.

Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be unduly

compromised. Id. See also, In re National Sec. Agency Telecommunications Records

Litigation, 2007 WL 549854 (N.D.Cal., Feb. 20, 2007); Mitchell v. United States, 2009 WL

4694010, * 1 (D.Ariz., Dec. 4, 2009). The Ninth Circuit has “carved out an exception to the

presumption of access” to judicial records, Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance

Company, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003), for a “sealed discovery document [attached]

to a non-dispositive motion,” such that “the usual presumption of the public’s right of access

is rebutted.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179 (quoting Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307

F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original); See also, Seattle Times co v.

Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984). 

The parties’ counsel are directed to confer, attempt to reach a stipulation

regarding sealing some or all of the proposed exhibits to Plaintiffs’ Response upon a

showing of compelling reasons, if any, and either jointly communicate to the Court on or

before Monday, August 22, 2011 how they wish to proceed on this issue or Defendants

must timely move for a protective order. If counsel do not timely communicate to the Court

how they wish to proceed or a protective order motion is not timely filed, the Court will

direct the Clerk to file all exhibits submitted with Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendant Nellcor

Puritan Bennett, LLC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment for public access.

There being no showing of “compelling reasons” to seal certain exhibits

related to a summary judgment motion,

IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ joint motion requesting the filing of

exhibits under seal, doc. 61, is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk is kindly directed to

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:10-cv-01275-LOA Document 65 Filed 08/12/11 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 -

keep those exhibits lodged with docket 59 temporarily under seal until further order of the

Court.

Dated this 12th day of August, 2011.

Case 2:10-cv-01275-LOA Document 65 Filed 08/12/11 Page 3 of 3