Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00349/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00349-45/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARGILL INCORPORATED and CASE NO. CV-F-07-349- LJO-SMS

CAN TECHNOLOGIES, 

Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING SEALED 

DOCUMENTS

vs.

MATTHEW BUDINE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Pursuant to this Court’s Protective Order (Doc. 143, November 1, 2007), the parties filed their

memoranda, statements of undisputed facts, affidavits and most exhibits under seal. (Docs. 182-184,

205-252, 259-261, and 268). This Court’s Protective Order includes the following provision:

12. Any Discovery Material that has been designated as “Confidential Information” or

“Highly Confidential Information” that is included with or the contents of which are in

any way disclosed in any pleading, motion, deposition transcript, or other papers filed

with the Clerk of the Court shall be filed under seal in accordance with Local Rule 39-

141. 

Having reviewed the documents designated by counsel as “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential,” the

Court revisits this provision. 

Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including

judicial records and documents.” Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). The

party seeking to seal a judicial record pertaining to dispositive motions bears the burden to overcome

this right. Id. “[T]he strong presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive

pleadings, including motions for summary judgment and related attachments. Kamakana v. City &

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006). 

The party seeking to seal documents must “articulate compelling reasons supported by specific

Case 1:07-cv-00349-LJO-SMS Document 276 Filed 05/29/08 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

This Court will not order unsealed the Confidential Settlement Agreements between Cargill and Mr. DeGroff and 1

Mr. Schwegel, filed in Marderosian’s Declaration in Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment, Exs. 18 and 19).

2

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.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178-

79(internal citations and quotations omitted). “In general, ‘compelling 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 s the use of records to gratify private spite, promote

public scandal, circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S.

598). “The 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.

Here, the parties provided no reason why this Court should seal the documents. Instead, the

documents were sealed based on the parties’ own confidential designation. The parties’ confidential

designations alone are not enough to outweigh the public’s right to access. “The ‘compelling reasons’

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

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

Accordingly, this Court ORDERS the parties to show compelling reasons, no later than

June 10, 2008, why this Court should not order the sealed documents to be unsealed(Docs. 182-

184, 205-252, 259-261, and 268).1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 29, 2008 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00349-LJO-SMS Document 276 Filed 05/29/08 Page 2 of 2