Vasquez v. Leprino Foods Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAIAS VASQUEZ and LINDA HEFKE No. 1:17-cv-00796-AWI-BAM on behalf of al other similarly situated 12 individuals, ORDER GRANTING PHILIP A. DOWNEY’S Plaintiffs, REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS 13

14 v. (Doc. No. 150) LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, et al., 15 16 Defendants. 17 Currently before the Court is the ex parte request by Philip A. Downey, counsel for 18 Plaintiffs Isaias Vasquez and Linda Hefke, to file the “Declaration of Philip A. Downey ISO 19 Unopposed Motion to Continue Hearing Date” and all documents attached thereto under seal 20 pursuant to Local Rule 141. (Doc. No. 150.) For the reasons that follow, Mr. Downey’s request 21 is GRANTED. 22 “Historically, courts have recognized a ‘general right to inspect and copy public records 23 and documents, including judicial records and documents.’” Kamakana v. City & Cty. of 24 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 25 U.S. 589, 597 & n.7 (1978)). “[J]udicial records are public documents almost by definition, and 26 the public is entitled to access by default.” Id. at 1180. This “federal common law right of access” 27 to court documents generally extends to “all information filed with the court,” and “creates a 28 1 strong presumption in favor of access to judicial documents which can be overcome only by 2 showing sufficiently important countervailing interests.” Phillips ex. Rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. 3 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1212 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Two 4 standards govern whether documents should be sealed: a “compelling reasons” standard, which 5 applies to dispositive motions, and a “good cause” standard, which applies to non-dispositive 6 discovery type motions. Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179; see also Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 7 605 F.3d 665, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2010). The “good cause” standard, which is applicable here, 8 presents a lower burden for the party wishing to seal documents. Pintos, 605 F.3d at 678. Courts 9 determine whether good cause exists to protect the information from being disclosed to the public 10 by “balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Id. (quoting Phillips, 11 307 F.3d at 1213). 12 Mr. Downey asserts that there is good cause to seal the documents at issue because they 13 “concern[] health information relating to members of [Mr. Downey’s] immediate family” who are 14 non-parties to this case. (Doc. No. 150.) Having considered the documents at issue, the Court 15 concludes that counsel has sufficiently shown good cause for filing under seal. Accordingly, 16 good cause being shown, Mr. Downey’s request to seal is HEREBY GRANTED. The Court 17 orders that the “Declaration of Philip A. Downey ISO Unopposed Motion to Continue Hearing 18 Date” and the documents attached thereto be filed and maintained under seal. Mr. Downey will 19 email the documents requested to be sealed to ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov for filing 20 under seal. IT IS SO ORDERED. 21

22 Dated: November 26, 2019 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23

24 25 26 27 28