Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01482/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01482-23/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
E. & J. Gallo Winery
Counter Claimant
Vineyard Investigations
Counter Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINEYARD INVESTIGATIONS,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. & J. GALLO WINERY,

Defendant.

.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO

ORDER GRANTING THE PARTIES’ 

NOTICE AND JOINT REQUEST TO 

SEAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE 

AND PLAINTIFF’S RENEWED 

MOTION TO COMPEL

(Docs. 140 & 143)

I. INTRODUCTION

On November 20, 2024, Plaintiff Vineyard Investigations (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant E. & 

J. Gallo (“Defendant”) filed a “Notice of Request to Seal Documents” (the “Notice”) and submitted 

to the Court a “Joint Request to Seal Documents,” pursuant to E.D. Cal. Local Rule 141, seeking to 

seal unredacted versions of their joint statement various exhibits related to Defendant’s Motion to 

Strike and Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel (the “Joint Request”). (Doc. 143). This Joint 

Request follows the parties’ previous request (Doc. 140), in which the Court observed that although 

it “indicate[d] the parties wish to redact and seal portions of documents, for many of those 

documents it is not clear to the Court what redactions, if any, the parties propose.” (See Doc. 141.) 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ revised Notice and Joint Request and the documents sought to 

be sealed and/or redacted, and the Court has determined that the parties have corrected the 

deficiencies identified in the Court’s previous order. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

GRANTS the Notice and Joint Request.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

All documents filed with the court are presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. 

v. U.S. Dist. Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). This is because “the courts of this country 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 144 Filed 11/21/24 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

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

records and documents.” Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 

2016) (citations omitted). Accordingly, a party seeking to seal a judicial record bears the burden of 

overcoming the strong public access presumption. Id.

Two standards generally govern requests to seal documents: the “compelling reasons” 

standard for documents directly related to the underlying causes of action, such as documents 

attached to summary judgment motions, and the lesser “good cause” standard for documents only 

tangentially related to the underlying causes of action, such as those offered in support of nondispositive, discovery type motions:

[J]udicial records attached to dispositive motions [are treated] differently from 

records attached to non-dispositive motions. Those who seek to maintain the 

secrecy of documents attached to dispositive motions must meet the high threshold 

of showing that “compelling reasons” support secrecy. A “good cause” showing 

under Rule 26(c) will suffice to keep sealed records attached to non-dispositive 

motions.

Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted); see 

also Ctr. for Auto Safety, 809 F.3d at 1098; Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 (9th 

Cir. 2009).

The good cause standard, applicable here, “comes from Rule 26(c)(1), which governs the 

issuance of protective orders in the discovery process.” Ctr. for Auto Safety, LLC, 809 F.3d at 1097. 

Rule 26(c) states that the court “may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from 

annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c); see 

also Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678 (stating that the good cause standard under Rule 26(c) asks “whether 

‘good cause’ exists to protect the information from being disclosed to the public by balancing the 

needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.”).

As the Ninth Circuit has stated, a blanket protective order does not by itself demonstrate 

“good cause” for sealing specific information and documents. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1183 

(“Although the magistrate judge expressly approved and entered the protective order, the order 

contained no good cause findings as to specific documents that would justify reliance by the United 

States....”); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1133 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A] party 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 144 Filed 11/21/24 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

seeking the protection of the court via a blanket protective order typically does not make the ‘good 

cause’ showing required by Rule 26(c) with respect to any particular document.”); San Jose Mercury 

News, Inc., 187 F.3d at 1103; Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 

1992) (“Further, because the protective order was a stipulated blanket order, International never had 

to make a ‘good cause’ showing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) of the need for protection of the 

deposition transcripts in the first place. Nor does it allege specific prejudice or harm now. Broad 

allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy 

the Rule 26(c) test.”) (citations omitted); see also Jepson, Inc. v. Makita Elec. Works, Ltd., 30 F.3d 

854, 858 (7th Cir. 1994) (“Even if the parties agree that a protective order should be entered, they 

still have the burden of showing that good cause exists for issuance of that order. It is equally 

apparent that the obverse also is true, i.e., if good cause is not shown, the discovery materials in 

question should not receive judicial protection.”) (citations omitted).

III. DISCUSSION

The parties seek to seal unredacted versions of the following documents relating to related 

to Defendant’s Motion to Strike and Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel (Docs. 136 & 139): (1) 

the parties’ “Joint Statement re: Discovery Disagreement” pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(c) (the 

“Joint Statement”); (2) Exhibits A-C, E-G to the Declaration of Corey Johanningmeier in support 

of the parties’ Joint Statement; and (3) Exhibits 4 and 6 to the Declaration of Matthew Chung in 

support of the parties’ Joint Statement. (See Docs. 140 & 143.) They further seek to seal in its 

entirety Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of Matthew Chung in support of the parties’ Joint Statement. 

(See id.) The request covers 288 pages. (Id.)

The parties seek to seal this material and document because it involves confidential business 

information, such as proprietary information regarding the parties’ business operations.

1

 Nonpublic information regarding a party’s business operations is typically subject to sealing. See Zavala 

v. GreatBanc Tr. Co., No. 1:19-CV-00239-DAD-SKO, 2022 WL 17830231, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 

20, 2022). Considering these privacy interests, the parties’ have adequately articulated “good cause” 

1 The parties again argue that the Court should grant their request because the relevant documents contain material 

designated as confidential under the parties’ stipulative protected order. As the Court has previously noted, a blanket 

protective order does not establish good cause to file documents under seal. See Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1130.

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 144 Filed 11/21/24 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

for maintaining confidentiality. See id. Further, by submitting a revised joint request that eliminates 

redaction of otherwise publicly available information, the parties have sufficiently demonstrated a 

“particularized showing” as to the material and document sought to be sealed. See In re High-Tech 

Employee Antitrust Litig., No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2013 WL 163779, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 

2013) (“Even under the ‘good cause’ standard of Rule 26(c), . . . a party must make a ‘particularized 

showing’ with respect to any individual document in order to justify sealing the relevant 

document.”) (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1180). For these reasons, the Court will GRANT the 

parties’ Joint Request.

IV. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the forgoing reasons, the parties’ Notice and Joint Request to Seal Documents related to 

Defendant’s Motion to Strike and Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Compel (Docs. 140 & 143) is 

GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that the unredacted documents listed in the Joint Request be 

FILED UNDER SEAL in accordance with Local Rule 141. By no later than two (2) days of the 

date of this Order, the parties SHALL file on the docket redacted versions of (1) the parties’ “Joint 

Statement re: Discovery Disagreement” pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(c) (the “Joint Statement”); 

(2) Exhibits A-C, E-G to the Declaration of Corey Johanningmeier in support of the parties’ Joint 

Statement; and (3) Exhibits 4 and 6 to the Declaration of Matthew Chung in support of the parties’

Joint Statement.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 144 Filed 11/21/24 Page 4 of 4