United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST TO SEAL
DOCUMENTS (ECF NO. 32)
I.
BACKGROUND
Autumn
Zetz and Eric Zetz (collectively “Plaintiffs”)
filed this action against Boston Scientific Corporation
(“Defendant”) in Fresno Superior Court on
February 1, 2019. (ECF No. 1-1.) On April 12, 2019, Defendant
removed the action to the Eastern District of California.
(ECF No. 1.) The scheduling order in this matter was filed on
October 11, 2019. (ECF No. 27.) According to the scheduling
order, the parties were to exchange initial disclosures on or
before November 1, 2019. (Id.)
On
November 1, 2019, Plaintiff filed their initial disclosures
on the docket.[1] (ECF No. 31.) On November 7, 2019, a
notice of request to seal documents was filed. (ECF No. 32.)
II.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs
seek to seal their initial disclosures because they were
mistakenly filed on the docket in this case when there were
only to be served on Defendant.
Courts
have long recognized a “general right to inspect and
copy public records and documents, including judicial records
and documents.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting
Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,
597 & n. 7 (1978)). Nevertheless, this access to judicial
records is not absolute. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1172.
The court has recognized a category of documents that is not
subject to the right of public access because the documents
have “traditionally been kept secret for important
policy reasons.” Times Mirror Co. v. United
States, 873 F.2d 1210, 1219 (9th Cir. 1989). Where
documents accompany a motion for resolution of disputes on
the merits that “is at the heart of the interest in
ensuring the ‘public's understanding of the
judicial process and of significant public events[, ] . . .
“ ‘compelling reasons' must be shown to seal
judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.”
Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179.
However,
where the request to seal addresses “private materials
unearthed in discovery, ” such as those at issue here,
a different standard applies. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors
Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010). To seal
records attached to a discovery or non-dispositive motion,
the moving party is required to show that good cause exists
to seal the documents. Id. Good cause is a lower
standard in which the Court balances the need for discovery
against the need for confidentiality. Pintos, 605
F.3d at 678. “A party asserting good cause bears the
burden, for each particular document it seeks to protect, of
showing that specific prejudice or harm will result if no
protective order is granted.” Foltz v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.
2003); Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors
Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210 (9th Cir. 2002). If the court
finds that particularized harm will result from disclosure of
the information it then balances the public and private
interests to determine if the information should be filed
under seal. Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1210.
The
document at issue here is purely discovery and is not
attached to any motion or matter before the court. Therefore,
Plaintiff must show good cause to seal the document. Upon
review of the initial disclosures, they contain private
information regarding Plaintiffs and their witnesses, which
includes addresses and phone numbers. Due to the fact that
the disclosures were not intended to be filed with the court
and should only have been served on Defendant, Plaintiffs
seek to have their initial disclosures sealed given the
private nature of the information that is contained within.
The Court recognizes the potential harm that could result
from the disclosure of the private information that was
mistakenly filed on the docket.
Recognizing
that there is some public interest in the initial
disclosures, initial disclosures are not the type of
documents that are typically filed in the action and the
parties were directed by the scheduling order to
“exchange” initial disclosures. (ECF No. 27 at
2.) The materials do not shed any light on understanding the
judicial process or the resolution of any issues in the case
at this juncture. Weighing the public interest in the initial
disclosures against the risk of harm due to the public
disclosure of private information, the Court finds that the
risk of harm due to the disclosure of the private information
disclosed outweighs the public need for the information. The
Court finds that good cause exists to seal Plaintiffs'
initial disclosures.
III.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.
Plaintiffs' request to seal, filed November 7, 2019 is
GRANTED;
2. The
Clerk of the Court SHALL SEAL the documents filed November 1,
2019; and
3. Upon
receipt of this order, Plaintiffs SHALL FILE the request to
seal documents, with the exception of Exhibit A attached to
...