Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03084/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-03084-1/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 DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 

UNDER SEAL [Doc. 86]

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to file documents under seal [Doc. 

120].) 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 

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. 

Case 3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS Document 90 Filed 04/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff’s sole argument for filing the documents at issue under seal is the fact that 

these documents were designated as confidential pursuant to the terms of a protective 

order. 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.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. The exhibits, which 

were lodged under seal, will not be considered. This denial is without prejudice to refiling 

the exhibits without sealing or filing a renewed motion to seal that actually presents a 

proper argument as to why there are compelling reasons to deny public access. Any new 

application to seal must be filed by April 14, 2018, include the requisite showing, and 

designate specific portions of the exhibits for sealing. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2018

Case 3:16-cv-03084-L-BGS Document 90 Filed 04/10/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2