Hansber v. Ulta Beauty Cosmetics, LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 SHAHARA HANSBER, et al., CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00022-AWI-JLT 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE 12 vs. MOTION TO JOIN THE NECESSARY PARTY 13 ULTA BEAUTY COSMETICS, LLC; and (Doc. 34) DOES 1-100, 14 Defendants. 15 16 17 The defendant seeks to seal documents upon which it relies for its motion to join a necessary 18 party (Doc. 34) The defense contends that these documents contain confidential and proprietary 19 information related to its business operations. Id. at 2. Despite the passage of the time allowed to oppose 20 the request (Local Rule 141(c)), the plaintiffs have not opposed the motion. 21 The request to seal documents is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The Rule 22 permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, 23 oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade secret or other confidential 24 research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified 25 way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after balancing 26 “the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 27 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). 1 Generally, documents filed in civil cases are to be available to the public. EEOC v. Erection Co., 2 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 3 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir.2003). The 4 Court may seal documents only when the compelling reasons for doing so outweigh the public’s right of 5 access. EEOC at 170. In evaluating the request, the Court considers the “public interest in 6 understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of 7 the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Valley 8 Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986). 9 Based upon the showing that the documents at issue, the Staffing Services Agreement dated 10 April 6, 2018, between Ulta Inc. and Exact Staff Inc. (pages 1 through 12), and the Client Service 11 Agreement, dated April 13, 2012, between Ulta and Randstad General Partner (US), LLC, reveal 12 confidential information that should be protected from public view, the defendant’s request to file these 13 documents 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 Dated: December 22, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27