ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL (Doc. 103)

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is the plaintiff's request to file under seal documents related to the defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 103) The only explanation for the sealing request is that information at issue was designated as "confidential" during discovery. Unfortunately, this alone is insufficient to justify sealing and, therefore, the request is DENIED without prejudice.

I. Legal Authority

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) determines when documents may be sealed. The Rule permits the Court to issue orders to "protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . . requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a specified way." 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.'" Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. Cal. 2010) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002)).

Generally, documents filed in civil cases are presumed to be available to the public. EEOC v. Erection Co., 900 F.2d 168, 170 (9th Cir. 1990); see also Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir.2003). The Court may seal documents only when the compelling reasons for doing so outweigh the public's right of access. EEOC at 170. In evaluating the request, the Court considers the "public interest in understanding the judicial process and whether disclosure of the material could result in improper use of the material for scandalous or libelous purposes or infringement upon trade secrets." Valley Broadcasting Co. v. United States District Court, 798 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1986).

Notably, this Court's Local Rule 141 sets forth how a request to seal documents should be made. In addition, the legal authority recited here demonstrates that sealing may occur only if good cause is shown. Despite this, the request here provides little discussion why information should be sealed. Instead, the only explanation is that the information was designated as "confidential"1 during the discovery process. (Doc. 103 at 2) Though the Court issued the stipulated protective order, this order did not authorize filings under seal. (Doc. 90 at 6-7) By citing to the Court's Local Rule 141(e), the protective order indicates only that if the Court allows sealing, the sealed documents would be destroyed.2 Id. at 7. Thus, the Court does not know why the plaintiff3 contends the documents should be sealed and cannot, therefore, find the good cause needed to grant the request.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff's request to seal (Doc. 103) is DENIED without prejudice. Plaintiff may renew his request for sealing or, if he chooses not to do so, SHALL file unredacted copies of the materials, no later than February 9, 2018. If he chooses to renew his request, he SHALL comply with this Court's Local Rule 141.

IT IS SO ORDERED.