Anthony Vinyards v. Natural Plant Protection ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY VINYARDS, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-00506-NONE-JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING ) REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 13 vs. ) ) (Doc. 41) 14 NATURAL PLANT PROTECTION, et al., ) ) 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) ) 17 18 The plaintiff seeks to seal a document upon which it relies to oppose the defense motion to 19 exclude testimony of the plaintiff’s expert. (Docs. 39, 40) The plaintiff sought the permission of the 20 defense on the public docket by the defense refused because it reveals “confidential and/or private 21 information of third parties; trade secrets; and other valuable research, development, commercial, 22 financial, technical and/or proprietary information.” (Doc. 41 at 2) 23 The request to seal documents is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The 24 Rule permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 25 oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade secret or other 26 confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in 27 a specified way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view 28 after balancing “the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. 1 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. 2 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). 3 Generally, documents filed in civil cases are to be available to the public. EEOC v. Erection 4 Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 5 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th 6 Cir.2003). The Court may seal documents only when the compelling reasons for doing so outweigh 7 the public’s right of access. EEOC at 170. In evaluating the request, the Court considers the “public 8 interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in 9 improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” 10 Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). 11 Based upon the showing that the document at issue, identified as ALNA 001860, reveals 12 confidential information that should be protected from public view, the plaintiff’s request to file this 13 document under seal is GRANTED. Within three court days, the plaintiff SHALL submit the 14 document by email to ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: November 3, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28