Pizana v. Sanmedica International LLC ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAUL PIZANA, Case No. 1:18-cv-00644-DAD-SKO 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO SEAL 9 v. DOCUMENTS 10 SANMEDICA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, (Doc. 115) 11 Defendant. 12 13 On December 17, 2020, Plaintiff Raul Pizana submitted a request to seal volumes I and II 14 of the “Deposition transcript of Gina Daines as the corporate representative for Defendant” and 15 exhibits B, C, and D to the “Joint Statement re: Discovery Dispute: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 16 the Resumption of the 30(b)(6) Deposition of Defendant SanMedica International, LLC (Gina 17 Daines)” (the “Joint Statement”) (collectively, the “Request to Seal”). (Doc. 115.) Plaintiff’s 18 Request to Seal states that these documents contain information “designated . . . as ‘Confidential’ 19 pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order.” (Doc. 115 at 2.) The parties’ Protective Order 20 provides that, “[i]n the event that a party wishes to use any Confidential Information, or any 21 document containing or making reference to the contents of such information, in any pleading or 22 document filed with the Court, such pleading shall be filed under seal pursuant to the Local Civil 23 Rules, . . . unless the party receives advanced written permission from the Designating Party to file 24 without filing under seal.”1 (Doc. 76 at 9.) 25 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), a request to seal a document “shall set forth the statutory or 26 other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to 27 1 “Confidential Information” is defined as “any information in any of the Discovery Material that is designated as ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ or ‘CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY’ by one or more of the parties to this action 1 be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” L.R. 141(b). “Only if 2 good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after balancing ‘the needs 3 for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Koloff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 4 113CV02060AWIJLT, 2014 WL 12573330, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2014) (quoting Pintos v. Pac. 5 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010)). A party may submit an opposition to a 6 request to seal documents within three days of the date of service of the request. L.R. 141(c). 7 Defendant SanMedica International, LLC has not submitted an opposition to Plaintiff’s 8 Request to Seal, and the time to do so has expired. Plaintiff’s Request to Seal is therefore deemed 9 unopposed. Plaintiff has complied with Local Rule 141, and in view of the documents’ designation 10 under the parties’ Protective Order, to which there has been no challenge (see Doc. 76 at 7–8), the 11 Court finds there is good cause to allow Plaintiff to file them under seal. 12 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Request to Seal (Doc. 115) and 13 ORDERS that volumes I and II of the “Deposition transcript of Gina Daines as the corporate 14 representative for Defendant” and exhibits B, C, and D to the Joint Statement be FILED UNDER 15 SEAL in accordance with Local Rule 141(e)(2). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Sheila K. Oberto 18 Dated: December 23, 2020 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27