G.P.P., Inc. v. Guardian Protection Products, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 G.P.P., INC. d/b/a GUARDIAN Case No. 1:15-cv-00321-SKO INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS, 8 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT Plaintiff, GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, 9 INC.’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 10 v. LOCAL RULE 141 11 GUARDIAN PROTECTION PRODUCTS, 12 INC., RPM WOOD FINISHES GROUP, (Doc. 449) INC., 13 Defendants. 14 15 16 On November 15, 2021, Defendant Guardian Protection Products, Inc. (“Guardian”) 17 submitted a notice of request to seal exhibits 1, 10–13, 15, 18, 20, 24–26, and 28–32 to the 18 Declaration of Aaron P. Rudin in support of Guardian’s Motions in Limine Nos. 1-7 (“Rudin 19 Declaration”) and to seal an unredacted version of Guardian’s Motion in Limine No. 2, which 20 contains quotations from the Revised Expert Report of Peter D. Wrobel (the “Request to Seal”). 21 (Doc. 449.) Guardian’s Request to Seal state that these documents “have been marked by one of 22 the parties to this action as confidential and/or highly confidential attorneys’ eyes only pursuant to 23 the Stipulated Protective Order in this matter.” (Id. at 2.) The parties’ Stipulated Protective Order 24 provides that “[i]n the event that a party wishes to use any Confidential Information, or any 25 document containing or making reference to the contents of such information, in any pleading or 26 document filed with the Court, such pleading or document shall be filed under seal pursuant to the 27 Local Civil Rules.”1 (Doc. 45 at 9.) 1 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), a request to seal a document “shall set forth the statutory or 2 other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to 3 be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” L.R. 141(b). “Only if 4 good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after balancing ‘the needs 5 for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Koloff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 6 113CV02060AWIJLT, 2014 WL 12573330, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2014) (quoting Pintos v. Pac. 7 Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010)). A party may submit an opposition to a 8 request to seal documents within three days of the date of service of the request. L.R. 141(c). 9 Plaintiff G.P.P., Inc. d/b/a Guardian Innovative Solutions has not submitted an opposition 10 to Guardian’s Request to Seal, and the time to do so has expired. Guardian’s Request to Seal is 11 therefore deemed unopposed. Guardian has complied with Local Rule 141, and in view of the 12 documents’ designation under the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, to which there has been no 13 challenge (see Doc. 45 at 7–8), the Court finds there is good cause to allow Guardian to file them 14 under seal. 15 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Guardian’s unopposed Request to Seal (Doc. 449), and 16 ORDERS exhibits 1, 10–13, 15, 18, 20, 24–26, and 28–32 to the Rudin Declaration and the 17 unredacted version of Guardian’s Motion in Limine No. 2 be FILED UNDER SEAL in accordance 18 with Local Rule 141(e)(2). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: November 19, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ or ‘CONFIDENTIAL: ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY’ by one or more of the parties to this action