Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02738/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02738-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ADP DEALER SERVICES, INC., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:14-cv-2738 TLN AC 

ORDER 

 Defendant has filed an “Unopposed Request” to seal a document that it has already filed 

on the public docket of this court, unsealed and un-redacted. Defendant asserts that the document 

contains “pricing information” which it says is “confidential.” However, defendant publicly filed 

this document on two separate occasions. Defendant first filed the document as Exhibit B (ECF 

No. 8-1), to its Answer to the original complaint, and then again a month later, as Exhibit B (ECF 

No. 15-1), to its Answer to the First Amended Complaint. 

 In general, there must be, at a minimum, “good cause” for overriding the “strong 

presumption” in favor of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City and County of 

Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). While there might have been good cause to seal 

the document at issue before it was made public – it contains confidential business information, 

and the defendant requested that it be sealed – defendant has not offered sufficient good cause to 

withdraw the document from the public record. 

Case 2:14-cv-02738-TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 02/27/15 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

 While the court is sympathetic to defendant’s plight, it does not remove publicly available 

documents from the public’s view without a sufficient showing that sealing is necessary and 

proper. Defendant cites Dayton v. Sears Roebuck and Co., 2014 WL 5797172 (E.D. Cal. 2014) 

(Nunley, J.), for the proposition that a document may be sealed after it has been publicly filed. In 

that case, plaintiff requested that a publicly filed document bearing her date of birth be redacted, 

and the court granted the request. However, the court’s local rules required that “[d]ates of birth” 

be redacted from publicly filed documents, and that “only the year” should be shown. E.D. Cal. 

R. 140(a)(iv). Accordingly, the court ordered the document refiled “with the appropriate 

redactions so that the Court may update the docket and seal the original filing.” Dayton, 2014 

WL 5797172, at *8. 

 Defendant has identified no rule, statute, case or other authority requiring that the 

document it filed must be sealed or redacted after the fact. To the contrary, the cases addressing 

this issue have denied requests to seal documents where they were already publicly filed, or 

where the information contained in the documents is already in the public domain. See Level 3 

Communications, LLC v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 611 F. Supp. 2d 572 (E.D. Va. 2009) 

(declining to seal documents offered in a public trial, and providing a thorough discussion of the 

issue).1

 The court does not find defendant’s request to be frivolous, however, and accordingly will 

 

1

 See also, Joint Equity Committee of Investors of Real Estate Partners, Inc. v. Coldwell Banker 

Real Estate Corp., 2012 WL 234396, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (“Defendants' assertions of 

confidentiality are frivolous in large part because Plaintiffs have already filed many of the same 

documents without seal on the public docket”); Cooke v. Town of Colorado City, Ariz., 2013 WL 

3155411, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2013) (“First, with regard to the exhibits that have been filed unsealed in 

any public record, including those that have been filed in this Court's Record since July 30, 2012, 

with no party seeking to seal them or otherwise obtaining a protective order for them, there is no 

reason to now seal those exhibits. In determining whether to seal a document, ‘the court must 

conscientiously balance the competing interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep 

certain judicial records secret.’ There can be no secrets in previously publicly disclosed records 

that no one has previously sought to protect. As a result, there can be no good cause or 

compelling reasons to keep such non-existent ‘secrets.’”); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics 

Co., Ltd., 2014 WL 722489, at *1 (N.D. Cal.2014) (“But Apple already decided to reveal the 

specific figures in Apple's opposition brief that Apple now seeks to seal. That request goes too 

far.”). 

Case 2:14-cv-02738-TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 02/27/15 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

deny the request without prejudice. Defendant may, if it wishes, renew its request if it can direct 

the court’s attention to a statute, rule or other authority requiring the document to be sealed or 

redacted. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s request to seal (ECF No. 20), 

is DENIED without prejudice. 

DATED: February 27, 2015 

Case 2:14-cv-02738-TLN-AC Document 22 Filed 02/27/15 Page 3 of 3