Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00159/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00159-0/pdf.json

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

---

CASE NO. 3:17-cv-00159-L-JLB

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

SHEILA DASHNAW et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NEW BALANCE ATHLETICS, INC., 

 Defendant.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00159-L-JLB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 

SEAL

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application to File Under 

Seal Portions of Motion for Class Certification (“Application”). Defendant has not 

filed an opposition. Plaintiffs request sealing of portions of their memorandum of 

points and authorities in support of motion for class certification, the entirety of 

exhibits A, D, G, H, I and K to the declaration of Jason H. Kim in support of the 

class certification motion, as well as the entirety of Douglas A. Kysar's and Colin B. 

Weir's declarations. The only reason cited in support of sealing is a stipulated 

protective order. For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs' Application is denied 

without prejudice.

Sealing court records implicates the "general right to inspect and copy public 

records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Nixon v. Warner

Case 3:17-cv-00159-L-JLB Document 58 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
1

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

Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978). The lack of opposition to a motion 

to seal therefore does not automatically resolve it. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto 

Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1128, 1130 & passim (9th Cir. 2003).

Aside from “grand jury transcripts and warrant materials in the midst of a preindictment investigation,” a strong presumption applies in favor of public access to 

judicial records. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 

(9th Cir. 2006). This principle was adopted “because the resolution of a dispute on 

the merits, whether by trial or summary judgment, is at the heart of the interest in 

ensuring the public’s understanding of the judicial process and of significant public 

events.” Id. at 1179 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 

A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the 

burden of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting 

the “compelling reasons” standard. That is, the party must 

articulate compelling reasons supported by specific factual 

findings that outweigh the general history of access and 

the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public 

interest in understanding the judicial process. In turn, the 

court must conscientiously balance the competing interests

of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain 

judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if 

the court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must 

base its decision on a compelling reason and articulate the 

factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis 

or conjecture.

In general, “compelling reasons” sufficient to outweigh 

the public's interest in disclosure and justify sealing court 

records exist when such court files might have become a

vehicle for improper purposes, such as the use of records 

to gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate 

libelous statements, or release trade secrets. The mere fact 

that the production of records may lead to a litigant's 

embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further 

litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal 

its records.

Id. at 1178-79 (internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted).

Case 3:17-cv-00159-L-JLB Document 58 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
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

Plaintiffs point to a stipulated protective order as the basis for the request. 

That a document is designated confidential pursuant to a protective order is of little 

weight when it comes to sealing documents which are filed with the Court. See San 

Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.(Saldivar), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 

1999); Beckman Indus. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 475-76 (9th Cir. 1992); 

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Or. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 340 F. Supp. 2d 

1118, 1121 (D. Or. 2003). By nature, protective orders are over inclusive, see 

Beckman, 966 F.2d at 476, because prior to signing, the judge typically does not 

have the opportunity to analyze whether any particular document should be sealed. 

See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1103; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1133. Whether a 

document designated as confidential pursuant to a protective order should be sealed 

must therefore usually be determined de novo. See Weyerhaeuser, 340 F. Supp. 2d 

at 1121. Plaintiffs' reliance on the protective order is insufficient to meet the 

compelling reasons standard for sealing court filings related to a class certification 

motion. 

Plaintiffs' Application is therefore denied. The Court will consider only the 

public portions of documents filed in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class 

certification. If Plaintiffs wish the Court to consider their unredacted memorandum 

of points and authorities or any other documents they sought to seal, they must 

either file them publicly or secure leave to file them under seal. Any new 

Application to seal must include the requisite factual support and designate specific 

portions of the documents for sealing. 1 The Court is not inclined to seal any 

documents in their entirety, unless Plaintiffs make the requisite showing to seal 

/ / / / /

 

1 If Plaintiffs renew the application, they must provide chambers with a 

courtesy copy of the documents they are proposing to seal. See Electronic Case 

Filing Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual ¶ 2.e.

Case 3:17-cv-00159-L-JLB Document 58 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
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

every portion of the document. If Plaintiffs intend to renew their Application, they 

must comply with this order no later than October 2, 2017. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 12, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00159-L-JLB Document 58 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
4

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

Case 3:17-cv-00159-L-JLB Document 58 Filed 09/12/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5