Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03084/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03084-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS

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

SCHOULEE CONES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 

UNDER SEAL [Doc. 91]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to file documents under 

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

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

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 pre-indictment 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). Accordingly, a party seeking 

Case 3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS Document 94 Filed 04/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS

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

to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming the strong presumption of public 

access by meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178.1 

Whether a party’s proffered reasons for filing documents under seal are compelling 

is fact specific and left to the “sound discretion of the trial court.” Nixon v. Warner

Comms., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978). If public access to a document might harm a 

litigant’s competitive standing in its business, the Court has discretion to allow a party to 

file the document under seal. Id. at 598–99. Here, Plaintiff seeks to file under seal

documents regarding the management of clinical trials and Defendant’s internal operating 

policies and procedures. In support of this motion, Plaintiffs submit declaration 

testimony from Ron Kraus (“Kraus”) one of Defendant’s corporate vice presidents. 

(Kraus Decl. [Doc. 91-1].) In his declaration, Kraus testifies that Defendant safeguards 

these documents as confidential because their public disclosure would erode a 

competitive business advantage in successfully conducting clinical trials of 

pharmaceutical and medical devices. (Id.) Having reviewed Kraus’ declaration and the 

underlying documents, the Court finds that public disclosure of these documents might 

harm Defendant’s competitive standing in its business. The Court therefore GRANTS 

Plaintiff’s motion to file these documents under seal. 

//

//

//

// 

 

1 Defendant’s argues that the “good cause” standard should govern here because a motion for class 

certification is non-dispositive. Defendant’s argument is unpersuasive because, from the fact that a 

motion is non-dispositive, it does not follow that the lower “good cause” standard (as opposed to the 

default “compelling reasons” standard) applies. Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, 809 F.3d 

1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016). Rather, the compelling reasons standard applies to all motions except those 

that are only “tangentially related to the merits of a case.” Id. at 1101. Defendant has failed to 

demonstrate that the present motion for class certification is only tangentially related to the merits of this 

case. Indeed, the merits of a plaintiff’s substantive claim(s) are often highly relevant in determining 

whether to grant class certification. Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 981 (9th Cir. 2011). 

Case 3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS Document 94 Filed 04/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS

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 SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 16, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS Document 94 Filed 04/16/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3