Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02280/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02280-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 

---

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

MILLENNIUM LABORATORIES,

INC.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 12-cv-2280-BAS(KSC)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

UNOPPOSED EX PARTE

APPLICATION TO FILE

DOCUMENT UNDER SEAL

[ECF No. 190] 

v.

ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE

COMPANY (U.S.), INC.,

Defendant.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s unopposed ex parte application to file the

Joint Statement of Undisputed Facts (“JSUF”) re: the parties’ cross-motions for

summary judgment. TheCourt has previously granted requests to file documents under

seal based on the same grounds presented in the this request on several occasions.

For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Plaintiff’s unopposed ex

parte application to file the JSUF under seal. (ECF No. 190.)

I. ANALYSIS

Two standards generally govern motions to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac.

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010). The standard varies depending on

whether the documents are general judicial records or “private materials unearthed

- 1 - 12cv2280

Case 3:12-cv-02280-BAS-KSC Document 192 Filed 07/18/14 Page 1 of 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

during discovery.” Id. at 678-79.

“[A] ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to most judicial records.” Pintos, 605

F.3d at 677-78. A party seeking to seal judicial records must show that “compelling

reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . outweigh the general history of

access and the public policies favoring disclosure.” Id. at 678 (quoting Kamakana v.

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006)) (internal quotation

marks omitted). This standard derivesfromthe common-law right “to inspect and copy

public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.” Id.; see also

Nixon v. Warner Comm’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). As long as the particular

document is not one that is “traditionally kept secret,” the presumption of access

“extends to pretrial documents filed in civil cases, including materials submitted in

connection with motions for summary judgment.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2003). However, thisright to accessis not absolute. 

“‘[C]ompelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and

justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle

for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote

public scandal, circulate libelousstatements, or release trade secrets.” Kamakana, 447

F.3d at 1178-79 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). But “[t]he mere fact that the

production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or

exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its

records.” Id. (citing Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136).

A less burdensome “good cause” standard applies when a party seeks to seal

“private materials unearthed during discovery,” which are not part of the judicial

record. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. The court applies the lower burden to such documents

because “[t]he cognizable public interest in judicial records that underlies the

‘compelling reasons’ standard does not exist for documents produced between private

litigants.” Id. (citing Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180). Under such circumstances,

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) governs. Rule 26(c) provides that a trial court

- 2 - 12cv2280

Case 3:12-cv-02280-BAS-KSC Document 192 Filed 07/18/14 Page 2 of 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

may grant a protective order “to protect a party or person from annoyance,

embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” The relevant standard for

the purposes of Rule 26(c) is whether “‘good cause’ exists to protect th[e] information

from being disclosed to the public by balancing the needs for discovery against the

need for confidentiality.” Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (citing Phillips ex rel. Estates of

Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). Furthermore,

documents attached to non-dispositive motions must also meet the less burdensome

standard under Rule 26(c). Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1135 (discussing Phillips, 307 F.3d at

1213); see also Pintos, 565 F.3d at 678-79; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180.

Here, the parties indicate that Plaintiff is currently under investigation by the

United States Department of Justice regarding matters related to this case. And the

Court has previously granted similar requests to permit the parties to file documents

under seal on several occasions. For those same reasons, the Court finds that good

cause exists to permit the parties to file their JSUF under seal. See Pintos, 605 F.3d at

678.

II. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed ex parte

application, and ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to accept and FILE UNDER SEAL

the requested document.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 18, 2014

Hon. Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

- 3 - 12cv2280

Case 3:12-cv-02280-BAS-KSC Document 192 Filed 07/18/14 Page 3 of 3