Scanlon v. Curtis International, Ltd.

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROMAN SCANLON, Case No. 1:19-cv-00937-NONE-SKO 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED REQUEST TO SEAL 9 v. DOCUMENTS CURTIS INTERNATIONAL, LTD., (Doc. 86) 11 Defendant.

13 On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff Roman Scanlon submitted a request to seal the unredacted version of “Plaintiff’s Reply ISO Motion for Leave to Amend” (“Reply ISO Motion to Amend”) and to seal exhibit nos. 7–9 to the “Supplemental Declaration of Seth A. Safier ISO Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend” (collectively, the “Request to Seal”). (Doc. 86.) Plaintiff publicly a redacted version of the Reply ISO Motion to Amend on January 6, 2021. (See Doc. 84.)

18 Plaintiff’s Request to Seal states that these documents “contain information designated as ‘CONFIDENTIAL’ or ‘HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL/ATTORNEYS’ EVES ONLY’ . . . per the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order.” (Doc. 86 at 2.) The parties’ Stipulated Protective Order provides that, “[w]ithout written permission from the Designating Party or a Court order secured after appropriate notice to all interested persons, a Party may not file in the public record in this Action any Protected Material.”1 (Doc. 43 at 17.)

24 Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), a request to seal a document “shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information.” L.R. 141(b). “Only “Protected Material” is defined as “any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” if good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after balancing ‘the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.’” Koloff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 1:13-cv-02060-AWI-JLT, 2014 WL 12573330, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2014) (quoting Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010)). A party may submit an opposition to a request to seal documents within three days of the date of service of the request. L.R. 141(c).

6 Defendant Curtis International, Ltd. has not submitted an opposition to Plaintiff’s Request to Seal, and the time to do so has expired. Plaintiff’s Request to Seal is therefore deemed unopposed. Plaintiff has complied with Local Rule 141, and in view of the documents’ designation under the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, to which there has been no challenge (see Doc. 43 at 8–9), the Court finds there is good cause to allow Plaintiff to file the unredacted version of the Reply ISO Motion to Amend and exhibit nos. 7–9 to the “Supplemental Declaration of Seth A. Safier ISO Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend” under seal.

13 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s unopposed Request to Seal (Doc. 86) and ORDERS that, by no later than January 15, 2021, the unredacted version of Plaintiff’s Reply ISO Motion to Amend and exhibit nos. 7–9 to the “Supplemental Declaration of Seth A. Safier ISO Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend” be FILED UNDER SEAL in accordance with Local Rule 141(e)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto Dated: January 14, 2021 /s/ .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE