Opinion
2:21-cv-02233 WBS AC
05-07-2023
DAIRY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Plaintiff, v. MILK MOOVEMENT, INC., a foreign Corporation, and MILK MOOVEMENT, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants.
ORDER RE: REQUEST TO SEAL
WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the court is Milk Moovement's request to file under seal portions of its Opposition to plaintiff/counter-defendant Dairy's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Counterclaims. (Docket No. 290.) This is at least the seventh request to seal the court has had to deal with in this action. The parties should have become familiar with the court's requirements for sealing documents by now.
In the present motion Milk Moovement seeks to seal materials designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY” under the stipulated protective order (Docket Nos. 54 61). As Milk Moovement correctly acknowledges, a confidentiality agreement between the parties does not per se constitute a compelling reason to seal documents outweighing the interests of public disclosure and access. There needs to be an independent basis for sealing or redacting a document beyond the fact that material is within the purview of a stipulated protective order.
Milk Moovement therefore asks the court that the identified portions of its Opposition be sealed on a provisional basis until the parties have an opportunity to substantiate their designations and make the requisite showing to maintain sealing. The court rejects Milk Moovement's request. If any of the identified portions of the brief would make the requisite showing to maintain sealing, Milk Moovement may bring a renewed request to seal.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Milk Moovement's request to seal portions of its Opposition to Dairy's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Counterclaims on a provisional basis (Docket No. 290) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.