Bright People Foods dba McDougall's Right Foods v. Alliance Sales & Marketing MW, Inc.; R & M Innovations LLC v. Alliance Sales & Marketing MW, Inc.

Opinion

1 2

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- 11 12 BRIGHT PEOPLE FOODS DBA No. 2:24-cv-00060 WBS AC 13 MCDOUGALL'S RIGHT FOODS,

14 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: PARTIES’ REQUESTS 15 v. TO SEAL 16 ALLIANCE SALES & MARKETING MW, INC., 17 Defendant. 18

19 R & M INNOVATIONS LLC, 20 Plaintiff, 21 v. 22 ALLIANCE SALES & MARKETING MW, INC., and DOES 1 TO 20, 23 Defendants. 24 25 ----oo0oo---- 26 Before the court is a veritable deluge of requests to 27 seal. (Docket Nos. 56, 58, 60, 64, 69, 74, 76.) Review of these 28 1 requests reveals that they are boilerplate filings that fail to 2 provide non-trivial reasons for why they should be granted. 3 Local Rule 141 governs requests to seal. Pursuant to 4 this rule, “[d]ocuments may be sealed only by written order of 5 the Court, upon the showing required by applicable law.” E.D. 6 Cal. L.R. 141(a). Parties making requests to seal must also “set 7 forth the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested 8 duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be 9 permitted access to the other documents, and all other relevant 10 information.” L.R. 141(b). 11 Plaintiff’s requests to seal (Docket Nos. 56, 58, 60, 12 74, 76) each state that they are being brought “pursuant to Local 13 Rule 141 and the parties’ Protective Order” and the 14 confidentiality designations therein. But the protective order 15 explicitly informs the parties that “[t]he designation of 16 documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential 17 pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties 18 to file such a document with the court under seal.” (Docket No. 19 28 at 1.) It also painstakingly reiterates the standard for 20 granting a request to seal articulated within Local Rule 141. 21 (See id. at 1-2.) Finally, the protective order provides that 22 “request[s] to seal material must normally meet the high 23 threshold of showing that ‘compelling reasons’ support secrecy.” 24 (Id. at 2 (citing Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 25 F.3d 1092, 1096-1102 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 38 26 (2016)).) 27 28 1 Plaintiff’s requests to seal, which “fail[] to provide 2 the court with any sealing authority other than protective order 3 itself,” must accordingly be denied because the protective order 4 “by its own terms demands a far greater showing than was 5 provided.” Barr v. AutoZoners, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-2319 WBS AC, 6 2026 WL 440648, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2026). Defendants’ 7 requests to seal (Docket Nos. 64, 69) fare no better as they 8 invoke no sealing authority at all. Accordingly, they, too, must 9 be denied. See L.R. 141(b). 10 This court will not “accept motions to seal that fail 11 to comply with the Local Rules and offer only boilerplate reasons 12 to seal documents from the public domain.” Bluetooth SIG, Inc. 13 v. FCA US LLC, No. 2:18-cv-01493 RAJ, 2020 WL 2063561, at *2 14 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 29, 2020). Indeed, “[t]here are better uses of 15 the parties’ resources than filing pointless motions to seal, and 16 better uses of the court's resources than resolving them.” 17 Brotherson v. Pro. Basketball Club, L.L.C., No. 07-cv-1787 RAJ, 18 2008 WL 11343114, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 26, 2008). 19 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ requests to 20 seal (Docket Nos. 56, 58, 60, 64, 69, 74, 76) be, and the same 21 hereby are, DENIED. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no further filing of 23 requests to seal is permitted except with leave of court. See 28 24 U.S.C. § 1651(a); DeLong v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146–47 25 (9th Cir. 1990) (“There is strong precedent establishing the 26 inherent power of federal courts to regulate the activities of 27 abusive litigants by imposing carefully tailored restrictions 28 ee III III SII IIE IIE III IID II IDI ISI IIE IOS under the appropriate circumstances.” (citation modified)). | patea: March 31, 2026 dete au~ 7h. ig Le WILIAMB □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28