H.W.J. Designs for Agribusiness, Inc. v. Rethceif Enterprises, LLC ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 H.W.J. DESIGNS FOR AGRIBUSINESS, Case No. 1:17-cv-00272-AWI-SKO INC., et al., 8 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ Plaintiffs, REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN 9 ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 141 v. 10 RETHCEIF ENTERPRISES, LLC, et al., 11 (Doc. 174) Defendants. 12 13 On December 27, 2019, Plaintiffs submitted a request to seal (the “Request to Seal”) (1) 14 Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Deadlines Pending Issuance of Claim 15 Construction Order (the “Opposition”) and (2) Exhibits A-D to the Declaration of Kadmiel E. Perez 16 in Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Deadlines Pending 17 Issuance of Claim Construction Order (“Exhibits A-D”). (See Doc. 174 at 2.) Plaintiffs do not 18 request to file under seal the declaration or the remaining exhibits to the declaration. Plaintiffs’ 19 Request to Seal states that Exhibits A-D consist of excerpts from deposition transcripts, which 20 contain trade secret information that is designated “Highly Confidential—Attorney’s Eyes Only” 21 under the protective order entered in this case, and that the Opposition repeatedly references the 22 information. (Id.; see Doc. 59.) Plaintiffs submitted to the Court and to Defendants the Request to 23 Seal, the Opposition, declaration, and exhibits, and a proposed order. 24 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), a request to seal a document “shall set forth the statutory or 25 other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to 26 be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” L.R. 141(b). “Only if 27 good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after balancing ‘the needs 1 113CV02060AWIJLT, 2014 WL 12573330, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2014) (quoting Pintos v. Pac. 2 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010)). A party may submit an opposition to a 3 request to seal documents within three days of the date of service of the request. L.R. 141(c). 4 Defendants have not submitted an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Request to Seal, and the time to 5 do so has expired. See id. Plaintiffs’ Request to Seal is therefore deemed unopposed. Plaintiffs 6 have complied with Local Rule 141, and in view of the documents’ references to trade secret 7 information, the Court finds that good cause exists to allow Plaintiffs to file under seal the 8 Opposition and Exhibits A-D. 9 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ unopposed Request to Seal (Doc. 174), and 10 ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Deadlines Pending 11 Issuance of Claim Construction Order and Exhibits A-D to the Declaration of Kadmiel E. Perez in 12 Support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Deadlines Pending 13 Issuance of Claim Construction Order be FILED UNDER SEAL in accordance with Local Rule 14 141(e)(2). The documents shall remain under seal for the duration of the litigation or until further 15 order of the Court. 16 To the extent Plaintiffs intend for the Court to consider the contents of the declaration and 17 the remaining exhibits to the declaration in ruling on Defendants’ Motion for Extension of 18 Deadlines Pending Issuance of Claim Construction Order, Plaintiffs may file the declaration and 19 the remaining exhibits to the declaration on the public docket by no later than January 3, 2020. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Sheila K. Oberto 22 Dated: December 31, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27