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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VINOO JAIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRIMAS CORPORATION,

Defendant.

CIV. S-04-889 FCD PAN 

ORDER 

—NFN—

On July 13, 2005, the parties lodged a stipulation and

proposed order that would broadly limit disclosure of material

that contains the parties’ respective “trade secrets or other

confidential research, development or commercial information.” 

The proposed order would require the filing under seal in this

court any document or information that comes within this

criteria, including pleadings, discovery documents and testimony. 

For the reasons set forth below, the requested protective order

is denied without prejudice.

Case 2:04-cv-00889-FCD-PAN Document 24 Filed 07/28/05 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

1 Several factors, which are neither mandatory nor exhaustive, may be

considered in evaluating whether to issue a protective order, including (1)

2

There is no public interest in documents exchanged

between the parties in pre-trial discovery that are not filed

with the court. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33

(1984)(“[m]uch of the information that surfaces during pretrial

discovery may be unrelated, or only tangentially related, to the

underlying cause of action”). Thus, the parties may do as they 

agree among themselves without permission or approval of the

court regarding classification of such documents as confidential.

The public right of access surfaces, however, when

parties seek to seal documents filed in conjunction with a

discovery motion and ripens when documents are filed in

conjunction with a dispositive motion or at trial. This circuit

recognizes a strong presumption in favor of access to court

records in civil cases. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,

331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)(citing Hagestad v. Tragesser,

49 F.3d 1430, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995)). This public interest in

full disclosure of court proceedings must be balanced against the

private interests of the parties in avoiding infringement of

trade secrets and the like. Phillips v. General Motors, 307 F.3d

1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002). If a court finds specific harm will

result from public disclosure of information, then it balances

the public and private interests to decide whether a protective

order is necessary. Id., 307 F.3d at 1211; Glenmede Trust Co. v.

Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995).1 If a protective

Case 2:04-cv-00889-FCD-PAN Document 24 Filed 07/28/05 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

whether disclosure will violate any privacy interests, (2) whether the

information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper

purpose, (3) whether disclosure of the information will cause a party

embarrassment, (4) whether confidentiality is being sought over information

important to public health and safety, (5) whether the sharing of information

among litigants will promote fairness and efficiency, (6) whether the putative

beneficiary of the order is a public entity or official entitled to less

protection than a private person, and (7) whether the case involves issues

important to the public. Glenmede, 56 F.3d at 483. 

2 When documents are sealed, they must be described obscurely in the

docket, which degrades the usefulness of the docket as an index, and that the

documents are literally sealed in separate envelopes that are kept separately

in a safe. No law clerk or judge can retrieve the court file for review

because there is no longer a single file. Hearings become awkward because of

concern about observing the sealing order. Writing decisions about the merits

is made more difficult and time consuming. To be sure, in a proper case,

these difficulties must be accommodated. However, the sealing of documents

3

order is warranted, it must be limited in scope and narrowly

tailored, protecting only that information necessary to guard the

movant’s privacy or property rights, or both, and no more. See

Citizens First Nat’l Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 943,

945 (7th Cir. 1999). 

The parties’ proposed order does not allow for the kind

of narrow balancing required by the court when considering

whether documents should be filed under seal. Blanket stipulated

protective orders are inherently subject to challenge and

modification because any party resisting disclosure generally has

not made a particularized showing of good cause with respect to

an individual document. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S.

District Court, 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999). In

addition, a blanket protective order imposes extraordinary

burdens on the clerk of court, law clerks, and judges both to

observe the order and specially handle “sealed” documents.2

Case 2:04-cv-00889-FCD-PAN Document 24 Filed 07/28/05 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

ordinarily results in lawyers putting off the opportunity to grapple with

discovery issues as they arise.

4

For these reasons, the parties’ proposed protective order

is denied without prejudice to this court’s consideration of a

more narrowly tailored order that respects these principles and

concerns. The parties are encouraged to agree among themselves

regarding the handling of discovery material that need not be

filed with the court.

So ordered.

Dated: July 27, 2005. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:04-cv-00889-FCD-PAN Document 24 Filed 07/28/05 Page 4 of 4