Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00894/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00894-27/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Conair Corporation
Defendant
Delia Wilson
Plaintiff

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

DELIA WILSON, on behalf of 

herself and all others 

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CONAIR CORPORATION,

Defendant.

CIV. NO. 1:14-00894 WBS SAB

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO 

SEAL

----oo0oo----

Defendant requests that the court seal Exhibit A filed 

in support of its motion for sanctions for spoliation of evidence 

against plaintiff. (Docket No. 131.) Exhibit A is a redacted 

copy of the retainer agreement between plaintiff and plaintiff’s 

counsel. Defendant argues, and plaintiff agrees, (Docket No. 

136), that the exhibit should be sealed because it contains 

plaintiff’s personal and confidential information and the 

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 138 Filed 04/13/16 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

agreement is protected by the attorney-client privilege. 

This court has previously told the parties that just 

because they agree to have documents sealed does not constitute a 

compelling reason that outweighs the public interest in access to 

court records. (See Feb. 5, 2016 Order (Docket No. 120).) The 

court has an independent obligation to balance the competing 

interests of the public and the parties seeking to keep records 

secret. See Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 

1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Defendant fails to specifically identify any 

information in the retainer, that has not already been redacted,

that might be protected by the attorney-client privilege. 

Defendant has therefore failed to “articulate compelling reasons 

supported by specific 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.” Id. at 1178. Accordingly, defendant’s request to seal 

Exhibit A is DENIED.

Dated: April 12, 2016

Case 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB Document 138 Filed 04/13/16 Page 2 of 2