Wright v. Old Gringo, Inc. ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARSHA WRIGHT, Case No.: 17cv1996-BAS(MSB) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL RE: EXHIBITS B, C, 14 OLD GRINGO, INC., et al., AND D, ATTACHED TO MEMORANDUM 15 Defendants. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE 16 PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT TESTIMONY AND 17 REPORT [ECF NO. 222] 18 19 Defendants filed a “Motion to Seal Re: Exhibits B, C, and D, Attached to 20 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s 21 Expert Testimony and Report” on January 9, 2020. (See ECF No. 222.) In their motion, 22 Defendants asks the Court to seal three expert reports of Plaintiff’s expert, Joshua 23 Vanetti, because they “contain materials designated ‘confidential’ pursuant to the 24 protective order (ECF 87) in place in this case.” (Id. at 2.) 25 Materials obtained through discovery can be included under seal with non- 26 dispositive motions if the requesting party demonstrates “good cause.” Kamakana v. 27 City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “When a court grants a 28 protective order for information produced during discovery, it already has determined 1 || that ‘good cause’ exists to protect this information from being disclosed to the public by 2 || balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Phillips ex rel. 3 || Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the 4 || protective order and makes clear that a motion to file under seal “must be narrowly 5 || tailored to seek sealing only of the confidential or privileged material.” (ECF No. 87 at 6 || 413 (emphasis in original).) 7 After reviewing Defendants’ motion and the expert reports they ask to file under 8 it appears to the Court that Defendants have not demonstrated there is good 9 || cause to seal Plaintiff's expert reports in their entirety. Defendants have not 10 demonstrated that the expert reports themselves are confidential under the terms of 11 || the protective order, and it appears that a substantial part of Plaintiff’s expert reports 12 || are not confidential, such as Mr. Vanetti’s background and qualifications, the 13 || procedures he used in formulating his opinion, data points from other companies he 14 || used, and his opinion itself. The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion because it 15 || finds that sealing the expert reports entirely is not justified or narrowly tailored to 16 || protect the sensitive data therein. 17 Accordingly, Defendants should resubmit their motion to file under seal no later 18 || than January 31, 2020, redacting only the portions of the document for which there 19 || exists good cause for sealing.* 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: January 28, 2020 = 22 BA Honorable Michael S. Berg 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 || ———————__—_ 26 1 Since the sealed lodged document is already on the docket at ECF No. 223, Defendants are asked to 27 || file two separate documents on CM/ECF: (1) their motion to file under seal, and (2) their redacted copy of Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Testimony and Report, Accompanying MPA, and 28 |! attached Exhibits.