Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01148/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-01148-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

James Eagle, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Bill Alexander Automotive Center, Inc., 

Defendant.

No. CV11-1148-PHX-JAT

ORDER 

 Pending before the Court are Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal 

(Doc. 60) and Defendant’s Amended Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 67). Plaintiff has 

filed a response to Defendant’s motion for a protective order (Doc. 68), whereby Plaintiff 

does not oppose Defendant’s motion. Therefore, the Court will grant Defendant’s motion 

for a protective order. The Court will also grant Defendant’s motion for leave to file 

under seal for the following reasons. 

 Historically, the public has a right to inspect judicial documents and records. 

Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). However, such a right is not 

absolute. Nevertheless, there is a strong presumption in favor of access to judicial 

records. A party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of overcoming this 

presumption by either meeting the “compelling reasons” standard if the filing is a 

dispositive pleading, or the “good cause” standard if the filing is a non-dispositive 

pleading. Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). 

 Defendant requests leave to file six exhibits to their Motion for Summary 

Judgment (Doc. 64) under seal. Thus, Defendant must show a compelling reason to seal 

the exhibits. Plaintiff has not responded to the motion to seal. Defendant argues that 

Case 2:11-cv-01148-JAT Document 99 Filed 08/08/13 Page 1 of 2
- 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 

these six exhibits contain information that Defendant treats as confidential. A company’s 

proprietary information derives its value from the fact that it is not generally available, 

thus preserving the company’s competitive advantage. See Elec. Arts, Inc. v. United 

States Dist. Court, 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008). If a company’s confidential 

information is released into the public domain (even accidentally), it may lose its 

confidential status, resulting in irremedial harm. Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 

986, 1002 (1984). Thus, protection of a company’s trade secrets or highly confidential 

business information constitutes compelling reasons to seal documents submitted as part 

of a dispositive motion. See Ctr. for Food Safety v. Johanns, 310 F. App’x 964, 965 (9th 

Cir. 2009); Elec. Arts, 298 F. App’x at 569-70. 

 The exhibits Defendant requests to seal are confidential communications and 

internal documents. The Court finds that Defendant has shown that filing this 

information in the public record would be harmful to Defendant’s competitive advantage 

if it were misused. Therefore, compelling reasons exist to file the six exhibits listed in 

Defendant’s motion under seal. 

 Based on the foregoing, 

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (Doc. 

60) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Amended Motion for Protective 

Order (Doc. 67) is granted and the protective terms in the motion shall be enforced in this 

matter. 

 Dated this 7th day of August, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-01148-JAT Document 99 Filed 08/08/13 Page 2 of 2