Wright v. Old Gringo, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Marsha Wright v. Old Gringo, Inc. (2025-07-11) — affirmed — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Michael S. Berg (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved to seal three expert reports attached to their motion to exclude plaintiff's expert testimony, claiming they contained confidential materials under the case's protective order. The court denied the motion, finding that Defendants failed to demonstrate good cause to seal the reports in their entirety, and ordered Defendants to resubmit a narrowly tailored motion redacting only specific confidential portions.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Defendants' Motion to Seal Re: Exhibits B, C, and D is denied.“The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion because it finds that sealing the expert reports entirely is not justified or narrowly tailored to protect the sensitive data therein.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'good cause' standard for sealing non-dispositive motions and the requirement that sealing be 'narrowly tailored' as mandated by the existing protective order. The court identified specific non-confidential portions of the expert reports (background, methodology, data points, opinion) that did not justify sealing the entire document. The denial is a logical application of the cited authorities and the terms of the protective order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the correct Ninth Circuit precedent for sealing discovery materials. It correctly identifies the conflict between the general 'good cause' finding in the protective order and the specific requirement for 'narrow tailoring' in the motion to seal. The court's analysis of the specific contents of the expert reports (distinguishing between confidential data and public-facing expert qualifications/methodology) supports the denial of the blanket sealing request. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this specific procedural ruling.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARSHA WRIGHT, Case No.: 17cv1996-BAS(MSB) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SEAL RE: EXHIBITS B, C, 14 OLD GRINGO, INC., et al., AND D, ATTACHED TO MEMORANDUM 15 Defendants. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO EXCLUDE 16 PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT TESTIMONY AND 17 REPORT [ECF NO. 222]
18 19 Defendants filed a “Motion to Seal Re: Exhibits B, C, and D, Attached to 20 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s 21 Expert Testimony and Report” on January 9, 2020. (See ECF No. 222.) In their motion, 22 Defendants asks the Court to seal three expert reports of Plaintiff’s expert, Joshua 23 Vanetti, because they “contain materials designated ‘confidential’ pursuant to the 24 protective order (ECF 87) in place in this case.” (Id. at 2.) 25 Materials obtained through discovery can be included under seal with non- 26 dispositive motions if the requesting party demonstrates “good cause.” Kamakana v. 27 City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “When a court grants a 28 protective order for information produced during discovery, it already has determined 1 || that ‘good cause’ exists to protect this information from being disclosed to the public by 2 || balancing the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Phillips ex rel. 3 || Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002). However, the 4 || protective order and makes clear that a motion to file under seal “must be narrowly 5 || tailored to seek sealing only of the confidential or privileged material.” (ECF No. 87 at 6 || 413 (emphasis in original).) 7 After reviewing Defendants’ motion and the expert reports they ask to file under 8 it appears to the Court that Defendants have not demonstrated there is good 9 || cause to seal Plaintiff's expert reports in their entirety. Defendants have not 10 demonstrated that the expert reports themselves are confidential under the terms of 11 || the protective order, and it appears that a substantial part of Plaintiff’s expert reports 12 || are not confidential, such as Mr. Vanetti’s background and qualifications, the 13 || procedures he used in formulating his opinion, data points from other companies he 14 || used, and his opinion itself. The Court, therefore, DENIES Plaintiff’s motion because it 15 || finds that sealing the expert reports entirely is not justified or narrowly tailored to 16 || protect the sensitive data therein. 17 Accordingly, Defendants should resubmit their motion to file under seal no later 18 || than January 31, 2020, redacting only the portions of the document for which there 19 || exists good cause for sealing.* 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: January 28, 2020 = 22 BA Honorable Michael S. Berg 23 United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 || ———————__—_ 26 1 Since the sealed lodged document is already on the docket at ECF No. 223, Defendants are asked to 27 || file two separate documents on CM/ECF: (1) their motion to file under seal, and (2) their redacted copy of Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Plaintiff’s Expert Testimony and Report, Accompanying MPA, and 28 |! attached Exhibits.