Walter v. Leprino Foods Company

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHARLES BATES, an individual, on CASE NO. 2:20-CV-00700-AWI-BAM behalf of himself and all members of the putative class ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 8 Plaintiff REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 9 v. (Doc. No. 33-1) LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, a Colorado Corporation; and DOES 1–100, inclusive, 13 Defendants 15 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Charles Bates’s request to file under seal indefinitely, pursuant to Local Rule 141, Defendants Leprino Foods Company and Leprino Foods Dairy Products Company’s training policies regarding the use of its time clocks and time keeping system, and portions of its Handbook and operative policies, which, under Defendants’ representation, contain proprietary and confidential business information. See Doc. Nos. 33, 33-1.

20 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 23 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). “[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1180. This “federal common law right of access” to court documents generally extends to “all information filed with the court,” and “creates a strong presumption in favor of access to judicial documents which can be overcome only by showing sufficiently important countervailing interests.” Phillips ex. Rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Two standards govern whether documents should be sealed: a “compelling reasons” | standard, which applies to dispositive motions, and a “good cause” standard, which applies to non- | dispositive discovery type motions. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179-80; see also Pintos v. Pac. | Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). The “good cause” standard, which is | applicable here, presents a lower burden for the party wishing to seal documents. Pintos, 605 F.3d 6 |at 678. Courts determine whether good cause exists to protect the information from being disclosed to the public by “balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.”

8 (quoting Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213).

9 Plaintiff claims there is good cause to seal the portions of the training, Handbook, and | operative policies at issue because they contain “propriety and confidential information, and have 11 designated as confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order as agreed to by the |Parties.” Doc. No. 33 at 2. Plaintiff identifies these documents as Exhibits A, E, F, G, and H to |the Declaration of Ryan A Crist. Id. Having considered the documents at issue and Defendants’ 14 of opposition to Plaintiff's motion to seal, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has sufficiently |shown good cause for filing the documents under seal.

16 ORDER 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: | 1. Plaintiffs request to seal (Doc. No. 33-1) is HEREBY GRANTED; 19 Exhibits A, E, F, G, and H to the Declaration of Ryan A Crist, and the references thereto in 20 Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of his Motion for Class 21 Certification, shall be filed and maintained under seal; and |3. Plaintiff will e-mail Exhibits A, E, F, G, and H to the Declaration of Ryan A Crist to: 23 ApprovedSealed @caed.uscourts.gov for filing under seal.

25 IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 | Dated: _ September 16, 2022 : : — SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE