Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02238/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02238-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

11cv2238

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SCRIPPS HEALTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CARPENTERS UNION LOCAL 1506,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv2238 L (WMC)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANT’S EX

PARTE MOTION TO FILE

EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL [doc. #3]

Defendant moves ex parte to file under seal exhibit 42 to the notice of removal of action.

In support of its ex parte motion, defendant states that Exhibit 42 consists of a confidential and

privileged settlement demand by plaintiff and in the absence of sealing, the disclosure would

chill settlement demands, discussions and agreements, and the information is not public.

Defendant also contends that the court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(7), may

protect trade secret ot other confidential business information. 

Historically courts have recognized a “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). Three different standards govern motions to seal documents in

judicial proceedings. First, “the narrow range of documents such as grand jury transcripts and

certain warrant materials . . . traditionally have been kept secret for important policy reasons.” 

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 504 F.3d 792, 801 n.7 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks,

Case 3:11-cv-02238-WMC Document 8 Filed 10/11/11 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 11cv2238

brackets, and citation omitted); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178

(9th Cir. 2006). Second, sealing a judicial record requires the requesting party to show

compelling reasons which outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

favoring disclosure. Pintos, 503 F.3d at 801; Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178. Last, to shield

“private materials unearthed during discovery” from public view, the requesting party must meet

the good cause standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Pintos, 503 F.3d at 801; Foltz

v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2003); Phillips v. General

Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002). 

Other than stating Exhibit 42 consists of confidential, non-public information, defendant

has not discussed the legal standard for sealing this particular document. Nor has defendant

provided sufficient legal or factual analysis upon which the court can based its decision. 

Based on the foregoing, defendant’s ex parte motion to file Exhibit 42 under seal is

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: October 3, 2011

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. WILLIAM MCCURINE, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:11-cv-02238-WMC Document 8 Filed 10/11/11 Page 2 of 2