Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01482/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01482-20/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

(Doc. 122)

I. INTRODUCTION

On April 30, 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, appendix, and various exhibits related to their 

Motion for a Discovery Dispute (the “Joint Request”). (Doc. 123). This Joint Request follows the 

Court’s denial (Doc. 119) of the parties’ previous request (Doc. 118), in which the Court found the 

parties had failed to establish the requisite good cause. (See Doc. 119). The Court has reviewed

the parties’ revised Notice and Joint Request and the documents sought to be sealed, 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 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 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 125 Filed 05/07/24 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

(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 nondispositive 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 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.”); 

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 125 Filed 05/07/24 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

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 

Plaintiff’s “Motion re Discovery Dispute” (Doc. 123): (1) the parties’ “Joint Statement re: 

Discovery Disagreement” pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 251(c) (the “Joint Statement”); (2) Exhibits 

1-2, 7-11 to the Declaration of Corey Johanningmeier in support of the parties’ Joint Statement; 

(3) the Joint Statement Appendix; and (4) Exhibits F and J to the Declaration of Matthew Chung 

in support of the parties’ Joint Statement. (Doc. 122 at 1). The parties previously sought to seal 

992 pages of documents; the current request covers 189 pages.

The parties seek to seal these documents because they contain confidential business 

information, such as sales figures or other non-public information, like technical information 

related to Defendant’s research and development.1 Both non-public financial documents and 

technical information are typically sealable. Digital Reg of Texas, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. C 

12-1971 CW, 2014 WL 6986068, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2014). Considering these privacy

interests, the parties’ have adequately articulated “good cause” for maintaining confidentiality. 

See Zavala v. GreatBanc Trust Co., No. 1:19-cv-00239-DAD-SKO, 2022 WL 17830231, at *2 

(E.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2022). Further, by submitting a revised joint request with fewer documents 

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 125 Filed 05/07/24 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

and by eliminating documents with otherwise publicly available information, the parties have 

sufficiently demonstrated a “particularized showing” as to the documents 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 (Doc. 

118) is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that the documents listed in the Joint Request be FILED 

UNDER SEAL in accordance with Local Rule 141.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01482-JLT-SKO Document 125 Filed 05/07/24 Page 4 of 4