Filed: Sep. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 141 SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . On March 14, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Valley Children's Hospital, Inc.'s (erroneously sued as Children's Hospital of Central California) request to seal the eight-page "Settlement Agreement and Release" entered into between the parties on October 11, 2016 (the "Settlement Agreement"). ( See Docs. 6, 9.) On September 5, 2019, Defendant submitted a request to
Summary: ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 141 SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . On March 14, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Valley Children's Hospital, Inc.'s (erroneously sued as Children's Hospital of Central California) request to seal the eight-page "Settlement Agreement and Release" entered into between the parties on October 11, 2016 (the "Settlement Agreement"). ( See Docs. 6, 9.) On September 5, 2019, Defendant submitted a request to ..
More
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 141
SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.
On March 14, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Valley Children's Hospital, Inc.'s (erroneously sued as Children's Hospital of Central California) request to seal the eight-page "Settlement Agreement and Release" entered into between the parties on October 11, 2016 (the "Settlement Agreement"). (See Docs. 6, 9.)
On September 5, 2019, Defendant submitted a request to seal the unredacted version of its Reply Brief in Support of it Renewed Motion for Order Compelling Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings in Pending Action until Arbitration Completed (the "Request to Seal"). (Doc. 52.) Defendant's Request to Seal states that its reply brief documents "generally refer to the provisions" of the previously-sealed Settlement Agreement. (Id. at 1.)
Pursuant to Local Rule 141(b), a request to seal a document "shall set forth the statutory or other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to be permitted access to the documents, and all other relevant information." L.R. 141(b). "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.'" Koloff v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. 113CV02060AWIJLT, 2014 WL 12573330, at *1 (E.D. Cal. July 9, 2014) (quoting Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010)). A party may submit an opposition to a request to seal documents within three days of the date of service of the request. L.R. 141(c).
Plaintiff Yvonne Peoples has not submitted an opposition to Defendant's Request to Seal, and the time to do so has expired. Id. Defendant's Request to Seal is therefore deemed unopposed. Defendant has complied with Local Rule 141, and in view of the documents' references to the previously-sealed Settlement Agreement, the Court finds there is good cause to allow Defendant to file the unredacted version of its reply brief under seal. (Id.)
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant's unopposed Request to Seal (Doc. 52), and ORDERS that the unredacted version of Defendant's Reply Brief in Support of its Renewed Motion for Order Compelling Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings in Pending Action until Arbitration Completed be FILED UNDER SEAL in accordance with Local Rule 141(e)(2).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
