Opinion
2:19-cv-01860-RAJ
01-23-2023
FAIRHAVEN HEALTH, LLC, Plaintiff, v. BIO-ORIGYN, LLC, JOANNA ELLINGTON, AKA JOANNA CLIFTON, AND DENNIS CLIFTON, Defendant.
ORDER
Honorable Richard A. Jones United States District Judge
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on the parties Expedited Joint Motion for Discovery Pursuant to LCR 37(a)(2) (Dkt. # 106) and Defendants' Amended Motion to Seal Redacted Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims (Dkt. # 120). Having considered the submissions of the parties, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law, the Court sets forth its ruling on each motion as follows.
II. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
a. LCR 37 Protective Order Dispute (Dkt. # 106)
Previously, this Court entered an order resolving a dispute concerning the parties' proposed protective order and ordered Plaintiffs to submit a proposed protective order for signature within 10 days of entry of the order. Dkt. #119. Defendants instead submitted a letter seeking a delay in entry of the protective order so that Defendants could conduct discovery. Dkt. # 124. Plaintiff then submitted a letter in opposition to Defendants' filing. Dkt. # 125. The Court reminds the parties that requests to the Court must be made via motion, and the parties' submissions do not conform with the district's local rules concerning motions. See LCR 7. Accordingly, the Court STRIKES docket entries # 124 and # 125. Further, the Court shall issue the protective order concurrently with this Order.
b. Amended Motion to Seal Redacted Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims (Dkt. # 120)
In its August 24, 2022 Order, the Court struck Defendants' previous Motion to Seal Redacted Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims (Dkt. # 73) with leave to re-file. See Dkt. # 119 at 2-3. The Court required that Defendants review the proposed redactions to ensure that such proposed redactions are as narrowly tailored as possible in order to balance Defendants' interest in maintaining the confidentiality of business-related and proprietary information with the right of public access. Id. at 3. Defendants now submit an amended motion which reflects that they have pared their sealing requests and presented a less restrictive alternative in the form of a single redaction. The Court has reviewed Defendants' proposed redaction and finds that it has cured the deficiencies of the prior sealing motion. The Court finds compelling reasons to GRANT the motion to seal in order to protect the confidentiality of the parties' sensitive and proprietary business information. Kamakana v. City of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Dkt. #120.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion to Seal. Dkt. # 120. Defendants' Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims shall remain on the docket in redacted form. Dkt. # 121. The Court STRIKES Dkt. ## 124 and 125 and issues a protective order concurrently with this Order.