Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02081/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-02081-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAKOTA MEDICAL, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

REHABCARE GROUP, INC. and 

CANNON & ASSOCIATES, LLC,

Defendants.

No. 1:14-cv-02081-DAD-BAM

ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO SEAL 

DOCUMENTS

(Doc. No. 157-1)

On October 28, 2016, defendant RehabCare Group, Inc. (“RehabCare”) filed a motion for 

summary judgment, accompanied by a request for leave to file under seal certain documents 

relating to that motion. (See Doc. Nos. 157, 157-1.) Defendant seeks to seal the following 

documents in their entirety: (1) RehabCare’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of 

its motion for summary judgment (see Doc. No. 157-3); (2) RehabCare’s statement of undisputed 

facts; and (3) certain exhibits to the declaration of Jon M. Wilson (see Doc. No. 158, Exs. A, B, 

D, K). (Doc. No. 157-1 at 1.) For the following reasons, the request to seal as presented is 

denied without prejudice to renewal.

LEGAL STANDARD

All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, 

Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999) (“It is well-established that the fruits 

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 160 Filed 11/02/16 Page 1 of 5
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

of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.”). 

Pursuant to Rule 5.2(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court “may order that a filing 

be made under seal without redaction.” However, even if a court orders such a filing, it may 

“later unseal the filing or order the person who made the filing to file a redacted version for the 

public record.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(d). “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to 

inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’”

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. 

Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). 

Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors 

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th Cir. 2010).

[J]udicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated] 

differently from records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those 

who seek to maintain the secrecy of documents attached to 

dispositive motions must meet the high threshold of showing that 

“compelling reasons” support secrecy. A “good cause” showing 

under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to 

non-dispositive motions.

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180 (citations omitted). Under the “compelling reasons” standard 

applicable to dispositive motions,

[T]he court must conscientiously balance the competing interests of 

the public and the party who seeks to keep certain judicial records 

secret. After considering these interests, if the court decides to seal 

certain judicial records, it must base its decision on a compelling 

reason and articulate the factual basis for its ruling, without relying 

on hypothesis or conjecture.

Id. at 1178–79 (internal quotation marks, omissions, and citations omitted). The party seeking to 

seal a judicial record bears the burden of meeting the “compelling reasons” standard. Id. at 1178; 

Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to . . . justify sealing court records exist when 

such ‘court files might . . . become a vehicle for improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to 

gratify private spite, promote public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade 

secrets.” Id. at 1179 (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598). “The mere fact that the production of 

records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment, incrimination, or exposure to further litigation 

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 160 Filed 11/02/16 Page 2 of 5
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

3

will not, without more, compel the court to seal its records.” Id. “The ‘compelling reasons’

standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under 

seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178–79.

DISCUSSION

Because defendant RehabCare’s motion for summary judgment is dispositive, the 

“compelling reasons” standard applies to its request to seal. Here, defendant RehabCare is 

seeking to seal a number of documents including deposition transcripts and a document disclosed 

during discovery and designated by the parties as “confidential” pursuant to a stipulated 

protective order issued by the assigned magistrate judge on July 20, 2015. (See Doc. Nos. 50, 

157-1 at 2–3.) In issuing the protective order, the court observed that “[d]isclosure and discovery 

activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private 

information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 

other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted.” (Doc. No. 50 at 2.) The magistrate 

judge, however, further specifically stated that the protective order “does not entitle [the parties] 

to file confidential information under seal.” (Id.)

1

 

After reviewing the record and considering defendant’s filings, the court finds the request 

for leave to seal documents is insufficient to establish that a compelling reason for secrecy. 

 

1 With respect to the filing of protected material, the protective order provides as follows:

12.3 Filing Protected Material. Without written permission from 

the Designating Party or a court order secured after appropriate 

notice to all interested persons, a Party may not file in the public 

record in this action any Protected Material. A Party that seeks to 

file under seal any Protected Material must comply with Eastern 

District of California Local Rule 141. Protected Material may only 

be filed under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing 

of the specific Protected Material at issue. Pursuant to Eastern 

District of California Local Rule 141, a sealing order will issue only 

upon a request establishing that the Protected Material at issue is 

privileged, protectable as a trade secret, or otherwise entitled to 

protection under the law. If a Receiving Party's request to file 

Protected Material under seal pursuant to Eastern District of 

California Local Rule 141 is denied by the court, then the 

Receiving Party may file the information in the public record unless 

otherwise instructed by the court.

(Id. at 14.)

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 160 Filed 11/02/16 Page 3 of 5
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

4

Defendant RehabCare’s request is based largely on conclusory statements regarding the content 

of the documents sought to be sealed—namely that the deposition transcripts and document 

produced during discovery are “confidential” as designated by the parties under the stipulated 

protective order. (See Doc. No 157-1 at 3.) These conclusory offerings do not rise to the level of 

“compelling reasons” sufficiently specific to bar public access to these documents. See 

Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1182. Indeed, “[t]he ‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the 

dispositive motion, or its attachments, were previously filed under seal or protective order.” Id. at 

1178–79. 

Moreover, defendant RehabCare appears to seek leave to seal two of its legal 

submissions—(1) the entire memorandum of points and authorities submitted in support of its 

motion for summary judgment, and (2) its entire statement of undisputed facts—based solely on 

the fact that these documents reference material sought to be sealed or which have otherwise been 

designated “confidential” by the parties. (See Doc. No 157-1 at 3.) Such wholesale sealing can

rarely be justified, especially in connection with a dispositive motion. To the extent the secrecy 

of certain documents referred to in the points and authorities and other documents filed in 

connection with the summary judgment motion is warranted, the court advises that defendant 

publicly file its legal submissions in redacted form in accordance with Local Rule 140, along with 

a proposed order to seal the unredacted version in accordance with Local Rule 141. 

Accordingly, because defendant RehabCare has failed to meet its burden to show a 

compelling reason to seal its documents in their entirety, its motion for leave to file documents 

under seal is denied. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above,

1. Defendant RehabCare’s request to seal (Doc. No. 157-1) is denied; 

2. Pursuant to Local Rule 141(e)(1), the Clerk of the Court is directed to return to the 

parties the documents for which sealing has been denied;

3. Defendant RehabCare is granted leave to refile its request to seal, identifying the 

specific portions of documents which it believes must be filed under seal and 

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 160 Filed 11/02/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

providing the compelling reason or other applicable reasons in support of such request 

to seal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-02081-NODJ-BAM Document 160 Filed 11/02/16 Page 5 of 5