Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01379/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01379-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAROLE TREW, on behalf of herself

and all others similarly situated,

and on behalf of the General

Public as a Private Attorney

General; LOREN FUNK, on behalf of

himself and all others similarly

situated; and JUDITH AND MATTHEW

WESLEY MARX, on behalf of

themselves and others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

VOLVO CARS OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,

and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.

CIV S-05-1379 DFL PAN 

ORDER 

-o0oDefendant moves to maintain the confidentiality of four 

documents designated as confidential pursuant to the parties’

Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order approved by the

Superior Court of Sacramento County on November 15, 2004, prior

Case 2:05-cv-01379-MCE -EFB Document 54 Filed 01/12/06 Page 1 of 6
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

1 The documents are Bates labeled (1) VCNA 5167-5179, (2) VCNA 5183-

5191, (3) VCNA 5300-5311, and (4) VCC 1-50.

2

to the removal of this case to this court. Defendant made the

designation in response to plaintiffs’ Second and Third Sets of

Production Requests. On Monday, January 9, 2005, defendant

lodged the disputed documents1 under seal, together with the

parties untimely “joint” statement, without prior authorization

of the court as required by E. D. Cal. L. R. 39-141(a). The

court vacated the January 11, 2006, hearing on this matter and

makes this order. 

For the reasons set forth below, defendant’s motion is

denied without prejudice to this court’s consideration of a

motion for protective order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).

The parties’ stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and

Protective Order is vacated. See 28 U.S.C. § 1450 (following

removal of action from state court, all orders “shall remain in

full force and effect until dissolved or modified by the district

court”). 

There exists in the Ninth Circuit a strong presumption in

favor of public access to court records in civil cases. Foltz v.

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir.

2003)(citing Hagestad v. Tragesser, 49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir.

1995)). The fruits of pretrial discovery are presumptively

public. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, 187

F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999); Citizens First Nat’l Bank v.

Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943, 944-45 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he

Case 2:05-cv-01379-MCE -EFB Document 54 Filed 01/12/06 Page 2 of 6
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

3

public at large pays for the courts and therefore has an interest

in what goes on at all stages of a judicial proceeding.”). 

On the other hand, there is no public interest in

documents exchanged between the parties in pretrial discovery

that are not filed with the court, and the parties may do as they

agree among themselves without approval of the court regarding

classification of such documents as confidential. Seattle Times

Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33 (1984)(“[m]uch of the

information that surfaces during pretrial discovery may be

unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the underlying cause

of action”). 

The public right of access surfaces when parties seek to

seal documents filed in conjunction with a discovery motion and

ripens when documents are filed in conjunction with a dispositive

motion or at trial. When parties rely upon and file documents to

support motions requiring a decision on the merits of a pending

dispute, i.e., by dispositive motion, the public interest in

access to court records grows stronger, see Foltz, 331 F.3d at

1135 (citing Rushford v. The New Yorker Magazine, 846 F.2d 249,

252 (4th Cir. 1988)), and is at its zenith in the context of

civil trial, Hagestad, 49 F.3d 1424. 

 When parties make a discovery motion that requires

consideration of potentially confidential documents, the public

interest in understanding the proceedings must be balanced

against the interests of the parties in avoiding unwarranted

disclosure of proprietary information, infringement of trade

Case 2:05-cv-01379-MCE -EFB Document 54 Filed 01/12/06 Page 3 of 6
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

4

secrets, and the like. The confidentiality of discovery

documents is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), which provides: 

“Upon motion by a party or by a person from whom discovery is

sought . . . and for good cause shown, the court in which the

action is pending . . . may make any order which justice requires

to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,

oppression, or undue burden or expense.” The party seeking

protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm

will result if no protective order is granted. Phillips v.

General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); see

San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102 (holding that to gain a

protective order the party must make “particularized showing of

good cause with respect to any individual document”); Beckman

Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th

Cir. 1992) (holding that “broad allegations of harm,

unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do

not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test”).

If a court finds specific harm will result from

disclosure of information to the public, then it balances the

public and private interests to decide whether a protective order

is necessary. Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1211; Glenmede Trust Co. v.

Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995). Several factors,

which are neither mandatory nor exhaustive, may be considered in

evaluating whether good cause for a protective order exists,

including (1) whether disclosure will violate privacy interests,

(2) whether the information is being sought for a legitimate

Case 2:05-cv-01379-MCE -EFB Document 54 Filed 01/12/06 Page 4 of 6
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

2 When documents are sealed, they must be described obscurely in the

docket, which degrades the usefulness of the docket as an index. The

5

purpose, (3) whether disclosure will cause a party embarrassment,

(4) whether confidentiality is being sought over information

important to public health and safety, (5) whether the sharing of

information among litigants will promote fairness and efficiency,

(6) whether the putative beneficiary of the order is a public

entity or official entitled to less protection than a private

person, and (7) whether the case involves issues important to the

public. Glenmede, 56 F.3d at 483.

If a protective order is warranted it should be limited

in scope and narrowly tailored, protecting only that information

necessary to guard the movant’s privacy or property rights, or

both, and no more. See Citizens, 178 F.3d at 945. Blanket

stipulated protective orders are disfavored; they are inherently

subject to challenge and modification because the party resisting

disclosure has not made a particularized showing of good cause

with respect to an individual document. San Jose Mercury News,

187 F.3d at 1103.

Defendant’s broad request this court maintain the

confidentiality of the designated documents throughout this

litigation does not allow for the kind of balancing this court

must undertake. Consideration must also be given to the impact a

sealing order would have on the clerk of court, law clerks, and

judges assigned to this case, both to observe the order and to

specially handle sealed documents.2

Case 2:05-cv-01379-MCE -EFB Document 54 Filed 01/12/06 Page 5 of 6
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

documents are sealed, literally, in separate envelopes and kept in a safe. No

law clerk or judge can retrieve the court file for comprehensive review

without “checking out” the sealed documents from the safe. Hearings become

awkward because of concern about observing the sealing order. Writing

decisions about the merits is made more difficult and time consuming. 

6

For all the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to

“maintain the confidentiality” of the four identified documents 

is denied without prejudice to a motion for protective order

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), made in compliance with E. D.

Cal. L. R. 37-251.

So ordered.

Dated: January 11, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01379-MCE -EFB Document 54 Filed 01/12/06 Page 6 of 6