Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No.: 25CV1119-AJB (BLM) 11 MARK WATKINS, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 13 v. ECF No. 35 14 AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Before the Court is Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion to File Portions of Defendant AvalonBay 19 Communities, Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses 20 Under Seal. ECF No. 35. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to this motion. See Docket. For 21 the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to File Under Seal. BACKGROUND 22 On May 2, 2025, this action was removed from San Diego Superior Court to this Court. 23 ECF No. 1. Defendant filed their answer on May 30, 2025. ECF No. 9. The Court held a Case 24 Management Conference on August 25, 2025 and issued a Scheduling Order on August 27, 25 2025. ECF Nos. 16, 17. In this Scheduling Order, the parties were required to file a joint motion 26 for a protective order. ECF No. 17 at 1. On September 15, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ 27 stipulated protective order (“SPO”). ECF No. 21. 1 discovery conference call with the undersigned’s Judicial Law Clerk regarding a discovery dispute. See Honorable Barbara L. Major Chambers Rules – Civil Cases, Rule V.B. The 2 conference was held and based on the information provided by both Plaintiffs’ counsel and 3 Defendant’s counsel, the Court issued a briefing schedule on October 23, 2025 setting forth 4 dates by which Plaintiffs were to file a motion to compel further discovery responses and a date 5 for Defendant to file an opposition. ECF No. 28. 6 Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel further discovery responses on November 3, 2025. 7 ECF No. 29. Simultaneously, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to seal a portion of the motion 8 to compel. ECF No. 30. The Court granted this motion on November 5, 2025. ECF No. 32. 9 Defendant filed their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel on November 17, 2025. ECF No. 34. Defendant also filed a motion to seal portions of its opposition. ECF No. 35. In this motion, 10 Defendant states the opposition “relies, in part, on declarations from AvalonBay personnel, and 11 certain written policy documents produced by AvalonBay, which are designated in whole or in 12 part as “CONFIDENTIAL” under the [SFO].” Id. at 3. Defendant further attests that disclosure 13 of these materials is “commercially sensitive, because disclosure may impact AvalonBay’s 14 competitive position in the multifamily industry.” Id. 15 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 16 Defendant seeks an order sealing Defendant’s unredacted Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion 17 to Compel Further Responses. ECF No. 35. In accordance with the undersigned’s Chambers 18 Rules, Defendant lodged a unredacted version of the Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 19 Further Responses. ECF No. 36. 20 “For discovery motions attached to non-dispositive motions and filed under seal pursuant 21 to a valid protective order, ‘the usual presumption of the public’s right of access [to court filings 22 is rebutted].’” Orthopaedic Hospital v. Encore Medical, L.P., 2021 WL 5449041, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 23 Nov. 19, 2021) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 24 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). Thus, a showing of good cause is sufficient under Federal Rule of Civil 25 Procedure Rule 26(c). Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 26 2006). Here, the underlying motion relates to a non-dispositive dispute regarding discovery 27 responses; thus, the good cause standard applies. The Court finds that Defendant has narrowly 1 || tailored its request to seal only a portion of the opposition that contains “sensitive information 2 || that, if made public, are likely to result in prejudice or competitive disadvantage.” ECF No. 35 at 3 || 4. Plaintiffs’ counsel was provided notice of this request to seal and Plaintiffs “do not oppose the 4 || request.” See Decl. of Mathilda McGee-Tubb in Supp. Mtn. to Seal (“McGee-Tubb Decl.”), ECF 5 ||No. 35-1 at | 3. Finally, the undersigned’s Chambers Rules, which are incorporated in the 6 || parties’ protective order outlines, “[a] sealing order may issue only upon a showing that the 7 || information is privileged or protectable under the law.” Major Chambers Civil Rules □□□□ 2; ECF 8 21 at 6-7. 9 Based on the motion to file under seal [ECF No. 35], and for good cause shown, the 10 motion to seal is GRANTED and it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Opposition be filed 11 || under seal [ECF No. 36]. 12 CONCLUSION 13 Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s ex parte motion to file documents under seal is 14 ||GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the unredacted version of □□□□□□□□□□□ 15 || opposition [ECF No. 36] under seal. The redacted version of Defendant’s opposition [ECF No. 16 || 34] shall continue to be filed in the public record. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 |)Dated: 11/18/2025 lobe Mager 20 Hon. Barbara L. Major United States Maqistrate Judde 22 23 24 25 26 27 28