Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00953/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00953-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

FOSTER POULTRY FARMS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT 

LLOYD’S, LONDON,

Defendants.

CIV. No. 1:14-00953 WBS SAB

ORDER RE: PARTIES’ REQUESTS TO 

SEAL DOCUMENTS

----oo0oo----

Plaintiff and defendants submitted separate requests to 

seal documents, (Docket Nos. 42, 48), in connection with their 

respective briefings on plaintiff’s motion to strike, (Docket 

Nos. 43, 49). The parties’ requests are almost identical to 

their previous requests to seal documents in connection with 

their motions for summary judgment, (Docket Nos. 38, 39), which 

the court denied in full on September 3, 2015, (Docket No. 45).

Case 1:14-cv-00953-WBS-SAB Document 52 Filed 09/23/15 Page 1 of 4
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

A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the 

burden of overcoming a strong presumption in favor of public 

access. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 

1178 (9th Cir. 2006). The party must “articulate compelling 

reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the 

general history of access and the public policies favoring 

disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the 

judicial process.” Id. at 1178-79 (citation omitted). In ruling 

on a motion to seal, the court must balance the competing 

interests of the public and the party seeking to keep records 

secret. Id at 1179.

I. Plaintiff’s Request

Plaintiff has submitted a request to seal the proposed 

memorandum in support of its motion to strike and five supporting 

exhibits, together totaling 127 pages of material.1 (See Docket 

No. 42.) Once again, plaintiff offers little explanation for its 

request. Plaintiff recites the boilerplate concerns from its 

first request to seal and states that the disclosure of the 127

pages of materials could cause it disadvantage, harm, damage, 

and/or loss. Once again, these concerns alone do not outweigh 

the history of access and public policies favoring disclosure to 

the public. See In re McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., 288 F.3d 369 

(9th Cir. 2001).

 

1 In the court’s prior order denying plaintiff’s request 

to seal, the court already denied plaintiff’s request as to Dr. 

Maxcy P. Nolan III’s expert report dated May 1, 2015. (Compare

Pl.’s First Req. to Seal ¶ 8 (Docket No. 39), with Pl.’s Second 

Req. to Seal ¶ 2 (Docket No. 42).)

Case 1:14-cv-00953-WBS-SAB Document 52 Filed 09/23/15 Page 2 of 4
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

Plaintiff also states that the documents include 

customer information, but again fails to indicate where. Upon 

review of the materials, the court was unable to identify any 

sensitive or privileged information relating to customers. 

Absent any guidance, the court cannot find a compelling reason to 

seal the entire memorandum in support of plaintiff’s motion to 

strike or any of the supporting materials.

II. Defendants’ Request

Defendants have requested that the court seal documents 

and redact information in connection with their opposition to 

plaintiff’s motion to strike.

2 (See Docket No. 48.) Once again, 

defendants’ only justification for sealing these documents is that 

the parties stipulated to, and the magistrate judge entered, a 

blanket protective order regarding documents to be disclosed in 

this case. 

This court has previously held that a confidentiality 

agreement between the parties does not per se constitute a 

compelling reason to seal documents outweighing the interests of 

public disclosure and access. October 8, 2014 Order at 2, 

Starbucks Corp. v. Amcor Packaging Distrib., Civ. No. 2:13-1754 

(E.D. Cal. 2014). The fact that the assigned magistrate judge 

signed the stipulated protective order does not change this 

principle.

 

2 In the court’s prior order denying defendants’ request 

to seal, the court already denied defendants’ request as to

Exhibits B–E to the Declaration of Wayne A. Wolff. (Compare

Defs.’ First Req. to Seal at 2 (Docket No. 38), with Defs.’ 

Second Req. to Seal at 2 (Docket No. 48).)

Case 1:14-cv-00953-WBS-SAB Document 52 Filed 09/23/15 Page 3 of 4
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

Beyond the stipulated protective order, defendants offer

no further guidance as to why these materials should be sealed. 

The burden is not on the court to parse a substantial amount of 

material to determine whether it contains sensitive information. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s request to 

seal, (Docket No. 42), and defendants’ request to seal, (Docket 

No. 48), be, and the same hereby are, both DENIED.

Dated: September 23, 2015

Case 1:14-cv-00953-WBS-SAB Document 52 Filed 09/23/15 Page 4 of 4