Orthopaedic Hospital v. DJO Global, Inc. ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORTHOPAEDIC HOSPITAL, Case No.: 3:19-cv-00970-JLS-AHG 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 14 ENCORE MEDICAL, L.P., MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS 15 Defendant. UNDER SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 16 17 (2) SETTING DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFF TO FILE A RENEWED 18 MOTION TO SEAL; and 19 (3) DIRECTING THE CLERK’S 20 OFFICE TO MAINTAIN 21 DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL IN THE INTERIM 22 23 [ECF Nos. 171, 172] 24 25 26 27 28 1 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Encore Medical, L.P.’s 2 (“Defendant”) Motion to File Documents Under Seal. ECF No. 171. Defendant seeks to 3 file its Second Motion to Compel and for Sanctions (ECF No. 172) under seal, because 4 Exhibits 12-16 and 19-24 attached thereto have been designated “highly confidential” by 5 Plaintiff Orthopaedic Hospital (“Plaintiff”) pursuant to ¶ 4.2(a) of the parties’ stipulated 6 Protective Order (ECF No. 43), and because the motion itself “quotes from, describes, and 7 summarizes the content of [those] exhibits[.]” See ECF No. 171 at 1-2. 8 For discovery documents attached to non-dispositive motions, “the usual 9 presumption of the public’s right of access [to court filings] is rebutted.” Phillips ex rel. 10 Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). A particularized 11 showing of “good cause” will suffice to seal documents produced in discovery. Kamakana 12 v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Foltz, 331 F.3d 13 at 1138). Because the underlying motion relates to a nondispositive dispute regarding 14 discovery documents, the Court applies the “good cause” standard. “For good cause to 15 exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm 16 will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips, 308 F.3d at 1210-11 (citing Beckman 17 Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that “broad 18 allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not 19 satisfy the Rule 26(c) test”)). 20 The Court has previously addressed a similar motion to seal filed by Defendant 21 regarding documents that Plaintiff had designated highly confidential. See ECF No. 123. 22 There, the Court explained that, consistent with the undersigned’s Civil Pretrial 23 Procedures, requests to file information under seal are “closely scrutinize[d]” and will only 24 be granted “if a specific showing is made that justifies sealing.” Id. Because, in that motion, 25 Defendant provided no argument in support of the motion to seal other than to explain that 26 Plaintiff had designated the documents highly confidential pursuant to the parties’ 27 protective order, the Court required Plaintiff to submit a declaration supporting the request 28 to seal, explaining “in detail” why the documents should be sealed. Id. l Once more, Defendant gives no reason why the Court should seal the documents at 2 ||issue in the present motion other than the fact that Plaintiff designated certain exhibits 3 || ““highly confidential” pursuant to the protective order. ECF No. 171 at 2-3. Anticipating 4 || that the Court would require Plaintiff, the designating party, to support the sealing request, 5 || Defendant notes in the motion that “[i]n light of the Court’s prior orders regarding motions 6 || to seal in this case, concurrently with the filing of this motion, Defendant has requested 7 ||from counsel for [Plaintiff] a declaration supporting the confidentiality of these 8 ||documents.” /d. at 3. Plaintiff has not filed any such declaration. Therefore, the Court finds 9 || that neither party has met the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if 10 documents are filed publicly. Defendant’s Motion to Seal (ECF No. 171) is thus 11 || DENIED without prejudice. 12 Because this denial is without prejudice, Plaintiff (as the designating party) may file 13 |}a renewed motion to seal the documents at issue, making a specific showing of prejudice 14 harm, no later than May 10, 2021. The Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to maintain the 15 ||documents at issue (ECF No. 172) under seal in the interim. If Plaintiff does not file a 16 |/renewed motion to seal by the deadline, the Clerk’s Office is DIRECTED to unseal the 17 || docket entry at ECF No. 172 on May 11, 2021. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 || Dated: April 29, 2021 _ Siow. Xion Honorable Allison H. Goddard 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28