Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02879/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02879-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

---

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 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HANGER PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS, )

INC., )

 )

Plaintiff, ) 2:06-cv-02879-GEB-JKM

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

CAPSTONE ORTHOPEDIC, INC., a )

California Corporation; GLEN S. )

ELLIS, an individual; SANTIAGO )

ROSALES, an individual; DAVID )

KIMZEY, an individual; ANGELA )

FULTON, an individual; and DOES )

1-15, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On February 22, 2008, Plaintiff submitted to chambers for in

camera review a Declaration of Aaron M. Schwarcz to which is attached

un-redacted documents, redacted copies of which have been filed on the

public docket. Plaintiff seeks decision on whether the un-redacted

documents could be filed under seal. These documents are part of

Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motions for summary judgment,

noticed for hearing on March, 10, 2008. 

Although a protective order, entered on October 3, 2007

(Docket number 37), prescribes that discovery materials in this action

Case 2:06-cv-02879-GEB -KJM Document 101 Filed 02/28/08 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

2

may be given confidential treatment, that order concerned discovery,

under which a document may be sealed if a “good cause” standard is

met. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180

(9th Cir. 2006) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)). But the issue of

whether the documents submitted on the pending motion for summary

judgment should be sealed is governed by a “compelling reasons”

standard. To justify sealing under this standard, a party must show

“compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . that

outweigh the general history of [public] access” to a judicial record

shedding light on the judicial process. Id. (internal quotations and

citations omitted). 

This standard has not been satisfied. Therefore, the motion

to file the documents under seal is denied. The Clerk of the Court is

directed to return the Declaration of Aaron M. Schwarcz to Plaintiff’s

counsel so that Plaintiff’s may decide whether its opposition only

contains the filed redacted documents, and whether to file the unredacted documents on the public docket. One copy of the declaration

has been retained based on the assumption that it will be filed on the

public docket. If the declaration is not filed on the public docket

within two court days, it will be shredded and the summary judgment

motions noticed for March 10, 2008 will be decided based on the

redacted copies filed on February 22, 2008. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 28, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cv-02879-GEB -KJM Document 101 Filed 02/28/08 Page 2 of 2