From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pac. Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Wartsila Def., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 25, 2018
Case No.: 17cv555-BEN (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018)

Opinion

Case No.: 17cv555-BEN (NLS)

04-25-2018

PACIFIC MARINE PROPELLERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. WARTSILA DEFENSE, INC., et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF No. 44]

On April 20, 2018, the parties filed a Joint Motion for an Order Permitting Plaintiff to File Documents Under Seal. ECF No. 44. Specifically, they seek to file under seal Exhibits 4 and 6 to the Declaration of Nathaniel R. Smith in Support of Joint Motion for Discovery Determination No. 4 (ECF No. 46). Id.

A party requesting that the court seal materials attached to a non-dispositive motion must make a particularized showing of good cause. Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, the parties have given no reason the exhibits require sealing other than that Plaintiff designated the documents as "CONFIDENTIAL" when they were produced. ECF No. 44-1 ¶¶ 3-4. This reason is itself not sufficient to constitute good cause. See Durham v. Halibrand Performance Corp., No. 14CV1151 DMS (JLB), 2014 WL 12520130, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2014) ("That a document is designated confidential pursuant to a protective order is of little weight when it comes to sealing documents which are filed with the Court."); Cortina v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 13-CV-02054-BAS-DHB, 2016 WL 4556455, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016) ("[P]arty's designation of documents as 'confidential' pursuant to such [protective] order, is not itself sufficient to show good cause."); San Diego Comic Convention v. Dan Farr Prods., No. 14-CV-1865 AJB (JMA), 2018 WL 1744536, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2018) ("Indeed, some district courts have declined to seal documents when the sole basis for the request is a protective order that covers them.").

Thus, the Court DENIES the motion to seal WITHOUT PREJUDICE to parties refiling the motion within 7 days of this order. If the parties wish to refile, they are instructed to include compelling and particularized reasons why the exhibits need to be sealed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 25, 2018

/s/_________

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Pac. Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Wartsila Def., Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 25, 2018
Case No.: 17cv555-BEN (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018)
Case details for

Pac. Marine Propellers, Inc. v. Wartsila Def., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:PACIFIC MARINE PROPELLERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. WARTSILA DEFENSE, INC., et…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 25, 2018

Citations

Case No.: 17cv555-BEN (NLS) (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018)