Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02280/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02280-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

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

MILLENNIUM LABORATORIES,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2280 H (KSC)

ORDER: 

(1) DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE EX PARTE

MOTION TO CLOSE

HEARING AND

TEMPORARILY SEAL

RECORD; AND

[Doc. No. 70]

(2) CONTINUING HEARING

vs.

ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE

COMPANY (U.S.), INC.,

Defendant.

On May 1, 2013, Plaintiff Millennium Laboratories, Inc. (“Millennium Labs”)

filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 45.) A hearing on the motion is

currently scheduled for Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. 

On July 15, 2013, Millennium Labs filed an ex parte motion to close the entire

July 17, 2013 hearing and temporarily seal the entire record of the hearing. (Doc. No.

70.) Millennium Labs argues that this relief is necessary because during the hearing the

parties will have to discuss the pending grand jury investigation. (Id.) 

The Supreme Court has long recognized a qualified right of access for the press

and public under the First Amendment to observe government activities. Leigh v.

- 1 - 12cv2280

Case 3:12-cv-02280-BAS-KSC Document 71 Filed 07/16/13 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

Salazar, 677 F.3d 892, 898 (9th Cir. 2012). This rights applies to both criminal and

civil actions. See id. at 899. “Courts have a duty to conduct a thorough and searching

review of any attempt to restrict public access.” Id. at 900. Further, although there is

no First Amendment right of access to grand jury proceedings, it is not always

necessary to close a hearing simply because it is related or ancillary to a grand jury

proceeding. See In re Motions of Dow Jones & Co., 142 F.3d 496, 502 (D.C. Cir.

1998) (“In all events, if the court can allow some public access without risking

disclosure of grand jury matters–either because of the subject of the proceedings

removes the danger or because the proceedings may be structured to prevent the risk

without disruption or delay, [the Federal Rules] contemplate[] that this shall be done.”).

Although the grand jury investigation may discussed at times during the hearing,

Millennium Labs has failed to show that good cause for closing the entire hearing and

temporarily sealing the entire record of the hearing.1

 Therefore, the Court declines to

close the hearing absent a further showing of good cause. In addition, there is a

procedure for requesting redactions to the transcript of the hearing, if appropriate, after

the hearing has occurred.2

 Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice Millennium

Labs’ motion to close the hearing and temporarily seal the record. If the parties wish,

they can further address Millennium Labs’ motion to close the hearing and temporarily

seal at the beginning of the hearing on Millennium Labs’ motion for summary

judgment.

///

///

///

///

1

 The Court notes that even though the briefing on the motion for summary judgment was filed under seal, the parties were able to file redacted versions of their

brief because many of the arguments and issues related to the motion do not involve

confidential information. (Doc. Nos. 45-1, 57, 61.)

2

 See the Court’s website under Attorney Assistance/Transcripts.

- 2 - 12cv2280

Case 3:12-cv-02280-BAS-KSC Document 71 Filed 07/16/13 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

In addition, the Court continues the hearing on Millennium Labs’ motion for

summary judgment from Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. to Wednesday July

17, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: July 16, 2013

______________________________

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

- 3 - 12cv2280

Case 3:12-cv-02280-BAS-KSC Document 71 Filed 07/16/13 Page 3 of 3