Pizana v. Sanmedica International LLC ( 2021 )

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. 119) 11 Defendant. 12 13 On December 23, 2020, Plaintiff Raul Pizana submitted a request to seal exhibits A, B, and 14 C to his “Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint” 15 (the “Request to Seal”). (Doc. 119.) Plaintiff’s Request to Seal states that these documents contain 16 information “designated . . . as ‘Confidential’ pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order.” (Doc. 17 119 at 2.) The parties’ Protective Order provides that, “[i]n the event that a party wishes to use any 18 Confidential Information, or any document containing or making reference to the contents of such 19 information, in any pleading or document filed with the Court, such pleading shall be filed under 20 seal pursuant to the Local Civil Rules, . . . unless the party receives advanced written permission 21 from the Designating Party to file without filing under seal.”1 (Doc. 76 at 9.) 22 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), a request to seal a document “shall set forth the statutory or 23 other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to 24 be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” L.R. 141(b). “Only if 25 good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after balancing ‘the needs 26 for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Koloff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 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 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 Defendant SanMedica International, LLC has not submitted an opposition to Plaintiff’s 5 Request to Seal, and the time to do so has expired. Plaintiff’s Request to Seal is therefore deemed 6 unopposed. Plaintiff has complied with Local Rule 141, and in view of the documents’ designation 7 under the parties’ Protective Order, to which there has been no challenge (see Doc. 76 at 7–8), the 8 Court finds there is good cause to allow Plaintiff to file them under seal. 9 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Request to Seal (Doc. 119) and 10 ORDERS that exhibits A, B, and C to Plaintiff’s “Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for 11 Leave to File Third Amended Complaint” be FILED UNDER SEAL in accordance with Local Rule 12 141(e)(2). 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 Sheila K. Oberto 15 Dated: January 4, 2021 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27