Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01464/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-01464-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Contitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF

OPTOMETRISTS & OPTICIANS;

LENSCRAFTERS, INC; and EYE NO. CIV. S-02-1464 LKK/DAD

CARE CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

 O R D E R

EDMUND G. BROWN, JR., in his 

official capacity as Attorney

General of the State of 

California; and CARRIE LOPEZ

in her official capacity as 

Director of the Department of

Consumer Affairs,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiffs in this case will soon move for summary judgment,

and plaintiffs request permission to file documents associated with

this motion under seal. There is a strong presumption in favor of

public access to documents filed in connection with dispositive

motions such as a motion for summary judgment, and this presumption

weighs against sealing such documents. Kamakana v. City & County

Case 2:02-cv-01464-LKK -DAD Document 494 Filed 01/22/10 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

2

of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). In the context

of a dispositive motion, “the district court must base its decision

[to seal materials] on a compelling reason and articulate the

factual basis for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or

conjecture.” Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d

1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003).

The court has previously adopted a stipulated sealing order

in this case. (Doc. No. 117). In light of that order, the court

tentatively GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion (Doc. No. 477). Plaintiffs

may file the following documents under seal:

* Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities in support

of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Pike.

* Declaration of Roger G. Noll in Support of Plaintiffs’

Motion for Summary Judgment on Pike, and exhibits attached

thereto.

* Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Undisputed Facts in

Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Pike.

Plaintiffs are cautioned, however, that this sealing is

tentative. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1186. The court will revisit

whether these documents should be permanently sealed at a later

time, when it is possible to perform the fact specific analysis

required by Foltz.

Case 2:02-cv-01464-LKK -DAD Document 494 Filed 01/22/10 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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 22, 2010.

Case 2:02-cv-01464-LKK -DAD Document 494 Filed 01/22/10 Page 3 of 3