Ross v. Abbott Vascular Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 WILLIAM C. ROSS, et al., Case No. 19-cv-03794-JST (SVK) 6 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON MOTIONS TO SEAL 7 v. Re: Dkt. Nos. 74, 83 8 ABBOTT VASCULAR INC., et al., 9 Defendants. 10 Now before the Court are Administrative Motions to File Documents Under Seal filed by 11 Defendant Abbott Ireland Ltd. seeking to seal certain materials submitted to the Court in 12 connection with the parties’ Joint Letter Brief Regarding Jurisdictional Discovery and Joint Chart 13 Reflecting Jurisdictional Discovery Disputes. Dkt. 74, 83. Abbott Ireland indicates that Plaintiffs 14 do not oppose the motions to seal. Id. 15 Courts recognize a “general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 16 including judicial records and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 17 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Communs., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 18 (1978)). A request to seal court records therefore starts with a “strong presumption in favor of 19 access.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178 (quoting Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 20 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003)). The standard for overcoming the presumption of public access to 21 court records depends on the purpose for which the records are filed with the court. A party 22 seeking to seal court records relating to motions that are “more than tangentially related to the 23 underlying cause of action” must demonstrate “compelling reasons” that support secrecy. Ctr. For 24 Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., 809 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir. 2016). For records attached to 25 motions that re “not related, or only tangentially related, to the merits of the case,” the lower 26 “good cause” standard of Rule 26(c) applies. Id.; see also Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. A party 27 moving to seal court records must also comply with the procedures established by Civil Local 1 Here, the “good cause” standard applies because the information the parties seek to seal 2 || was submitted to the Court in connection with a discovery-related motion, rather than a motion 3 that concerns the merits of the case. Having considered the Motions, supporting declarations, and 4 || the pleadings on file, and good cause appearing, the Motions are hereby GRANTED as follows: 5 7 Exhibit 2 to Joint Letter Brief RegardingIGRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect urisdictional Discovery: Abbott Ireland |excerpts on pages 7, _|confidential, proprietary business 8 ILtd.’s Supplemental Response to 10-11, 13, 18-19, and jinformation concerning Defendant 9 Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories to Abbott/21 as shown in Exhibit|Abbott Ireland Ltd., non-party Ireland Ltd. Related to Personal A to the Persichetti [Abbott Ireland (Bermuda), and their 10 urisdiction Declaration vendors. Good cause to believe public disclosure of this information 11 may cause harm to those entities. See D Persichetti Decl. at JJ 4-5. oint Chart Reflecting Jurisdictional GRANTED as to Narrowly tailored to protect . . □ . . . 13 IDiscovery Disputes Pursuant To ECF _ [excerpts on pages 12, |confidential, proprietary business INo. 73 22, 25-30, and 33-36, |information concerning Defendant as shown in Exhibit A [Abbott Ireland Ltd., non-party 5 5 to the motion to seal |Abbott Ireland (Bermuda), and their (which are references vendors. Good cause to believe to the materials in Ex. jpyblic disclosure of this information 16 2, attached to the iti » atl may cause harm to those entities. See 17 Original Motion to _[persichetti Decl. at 49 4-5. Seal) a 18 SO ORDERED. 19 |! Dated: August 28, 2020 20 21 Suu ar Kul 22 SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28