Opinion
1:21-cv-00022-AWI-JLT
12-22-2021
SHAHARA HANSBER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ULTA BEAUTY COSMETICS, LLC; and DOES 1-100, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE MOTION TO JOIN THE NECESSARY PARTY (DOC. 34)
JENNIFER L. THURSTON, CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
The defendant seeks to seal documents upon which it relies for its motion to join a necessary party (Doc. 34) The defense contends that these documents contain confidential and proprietary information related to its business operations. Id. at 2. Despite the passage of the time allowed to oppose the request (Local Rule 141(c)), the plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.
The request to seal documents is controlled by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The Rule permits the Court to issue orders to “protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way.” Only if good cause exists may the Court seal the information from public view after balancing “the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.'” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)).
Generally, documents filed in civil cases are to be available to the public. EEOC v. Erection Co. 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir.2003). The Court may seal documents only when the compelling reasons for doing so outweigh the public's right of access. EEOC at 170. In evaluating the request, the Court considers the “public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets.” Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986).
Based upon the showing that the documents at issue, the Staffing Services Agreement dated April 6, 2018, between Ulta Inc. and Exact Staff Inc. (pages 1 through 12), and the Client Service Agreement, dated April 13, 2012, between Ulta and Randstad General Partner (US), LLC, reveal confidential information that should be protected from public view, the defendant's request to file these documents under seal is GRANTED. Within three court days, the plaintiff SHALL submit the document by email to ApprovedSealed@caed.uscourts.gov.
IT IS SO ORDERED.