Opinion
20-cv-958-CAB-DDL
12-14-2022
OMNITRACS, LLC and XRS CORPORATION, Plaintiffs, v. PLATFORM SCIENCE, INC., Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL
[Dkt. No. 216]
Hon. David D. Leshner United States Magistrate Judge
On December 5, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Statement of Discovery Disputes, to which were appended certain of the parties' discovery requests and responses thereto. Dkt. No. 218. The parties concurrently moved to seal certain of their discovery responses. Dkt. No. 216. The parties represent that these materials contain “highly sensitive” information such as “trade secret or other confidential research, development, financial, or other commercial information,” and “revenue, sales and losses estimates” that were accordingly designated by the responding party as “Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only” under the terms of the operative protective order. See Dkt. No. 216 at 2, 4.
Based on its review of the record, the Court finds that the parties have made a sufficient showing to justify sealing the specific discovery responses at issue. The Court reminds the parties, however, that designation under a blanket protective order is not a sufficient basis to seal documents. See Kamakana v. City and Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1183 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that “confidential categorization of discovery documents under [a] [blanket] protective order [is] not a guarantee of confidentiality, especially in the event of a court filing”). Instead, the Ninth Circuit requires the Court to “make an individualized determination” based on a specific showing that the parties' interests in confidential treatment of a particular document overcomes the public's well-established right of access to judicial records. See id. The parties are advised that the Court will continue to carefully scrutinize all pleadings, documents and information that the parties seek to file under seal.
For the above reasons, the Motion to Seal [Dkt. No. 216] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.