Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08274/USCOURTS-azd-3_13-cv-08274-1/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

James Gustafson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Goodman Manufacturing Company LP, et 

al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-08274-PCT-JAT

ORDER 

Sealing Documents 

Pending before the Court is a motion for class certification (Doc. 54) the 

supporting memorandum for which was filed completely under seal. (Docs. 53 and 65). 

This Court has not undertaken to determine whether this procedure was consistent with 

the parties’ protective order (Doc. 41). 

Regardless, this Court finds that the Order permitting filing under seal does not 

articulate the basis for sealing as required under Ninth Circuit law. See Foltz v. State 

Farm, 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) (requiring the district court, prior to sealing 

to, “consider all relevant factors, including: the public interest in understanding the 

judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the 

material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.... After 

taking all relevant factors into consideration, the district court must base its decision on a 

compelling reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying on 

hypothesis or conjecture.”) (quoting Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 76 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

Cir.1995)). Further, Plaintiff has failed to articulate, on an item by item basis, why each 

line of the memorandum must be under seal. See San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. 

District Court - - Northern District (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) 

(party must make “a particularized showing of good cause with respect to any individual 

document”). 

Accordingly, Plaintiff will be required to file an unsealed, redacted version of the 

memorandum in support of the motion for class certification. For each item Plaintiff 

redacts, Plaintiff must file (under seal) a motion to seal, articulating a specific basis 

(supported by law) that would justify sealing each redacted item individually. To allow 

this Court to articulate its factual basis for any ruling, Plaintiff may not make generalized 

assertions like “all items are trade secrets,” but instead must explain how each document 

or item qualifies as a trade secret (Plaintiff’s motion to seal must also include justification 

for sealing any related document currently under seal). 

In filing any future documents in this case (including responses and replies to the 

motion for class certification), the parties must follow this procedure. Specifically, 

before any party files any document under seal such party shall seek leave of Court and 

shall show “compelling reasons” (dispositive motion) or “good cause” (non-dispositive 

motion) for filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2006). Additionally, such party seeking to file under seal shall, 

within the applicable deadline, file a redacted, unsealed version of any motion, response 

or reply if such party is waiting for a ruling from the Court on filing an unredacted, sealed 

version of the same document. Finally, at least 5 days before any document will be filed 

in which a party will seek to seal the opposing parties’ information, the parties shall 

confer to determine whether the opposing party will waive the confidentiality 

designation. If not, then the filing party shall file a motion to seal when the document is 

filed, and the opposing party who designated the documents as confidential shall, within 

1 day, file a supporting memorandum justifying why its documents must be sealed. 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 76 Filed 10/30/15 Page 2 of 4
- 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 

Deadlines 

The Court notes that the deadlines set in this case by the prior Judge already far 

exceed the amount of time to litigate a case that the Court would have permitted. See 28 

U.S.C. § 473(a)(2)(B) (district courts should have cases to trial within eighteen months of 

when they are filed). While the Court will not accelerate the deadlines currently set for 

briefing the motion for class certification, or the close of discovery and the filing of 

dispositive motions, the parties are cautioned that there will be NO EXTENSIONS of 

these deadlines. Further, if the parties have already received extended briefing schedules 

for any future motions, those deadlines are vacated. Other than the motion for class 

certification currently pending, all responses and replies will be due within the deadlines 

set by the Local Civil Rules. The Court will hear oral argument on the Motion for Class 

Certification on March 2, 2016 at 1:30. 

Finally, the Court will set a firm trial date (in the event no dispositive motion is 

granted) of January 9, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. Again, there will be no continuances of this 

deadline. Thus, counsel should advise all witnesses and experts of this trial date 

immediately and have them arrange their calendars accordingly; further counsel shall be 

satisfied of their availability for this trial date, and if in doubt, ensure that other members 

of the law firm will be available to try the case. 

Conclusion 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file a redacted, unsealed motion for class 

certification, and all related documents, by November 9, 2015. Plaintiff shall 

contemporaneously file a sealed motion to seal as detailed above. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting oral argument on the motion for class 

certification (Doc. 54) for March 2, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. To assist the Court Reporter, each 

party shall prepare and bring a table of authorities to oral argument. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 76 Filed 10/30/15 Page 3 of 4
- 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 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED setting trial to begin January 9, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. 

If the Court denies all dispositive motions, Plaintiff shall file a Notice of Readiness for a 

Final Pretrial Conference within 5 days of the Order denying the motions. 

Dated this 30th day of October, 2015. 

Case 3:13-cv-08274-JAT Document 76 Filed 10/30/15 Page 4 of 4