Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02906/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02906-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVE JUHLINE, individually and on

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

BEN BRIDGE-JEWELER, INC., a

Washington corporation,

Defendant.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:11-cv-2906-GPC-NLS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS

UNDER SEAL

(ECF NO. 68)

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to File Documents in Support of

Opposition to Motion for Decertification under Seal. (ECF No. 68, “Motion”.) 

Plaintiff explains he filed the Motion pursuant to the Protective Order in this

case, (ECF No. 47), which provides that documents designated as “Confidential” may

only be filed under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the specific

Protected Material at issue. 

Plaintiff goes on to explain that the material he asks to be sealed was designated

as “Confidential” by Defendant, but that Plaintiff “cannot articulate good cause for

sealing the unredacted documents, [now lodged at ECF No. 69,] but submits such

documents for sealing pending good cause shown by Defendant.” As such, Plaintiff

has not demonstrated that “compelling reasons” exist to seal the redacted material. See

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006)

3:11-cv-2906-GPC-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-02906-GPC-NLS Document 70 Filed 05/06/14 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

(explaining that “compelling reasons” are required to seal material attached to a

dispositive motion); Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 2013 WL 3353852, at

*2 (C.D. Cal. July 3, 2013) (categorizing motion to decertify as a dispositive motion).

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion, (ECF No. 68), WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. Should Defendant wish to file an appropriate motion to seal the

documents now lodged at ECF No. 69, Defendant shall do so on or before May 12,

2014, at 5:00 p.m. Should Defendant fail to file such a motion, the documents now

lodged at ECF No. 69 will PUBLICLY FILED without further order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 5, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

2 3:11-cv-2906-GPC-NLS

Case 3:11-cv-02906-GPC-NLS Document 70 Filed 05/06/14 Page 2 of 2