Filed: Jun. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 23, 2016
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Ruttenberg IP Law's (hereinafter "RIPL") Motion to File Under Seal (ECF No. 146), filed on June 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their Response on June 15, 2016. (ECF No. 148). RIPL requests leave to file its reply in support of motion to enforce lien and exhibits 9 through 31 attached thereto under seal because Defendants eGtran Corporation and EZconn Corporation, RIPL's former clients, "[did] not waive their privi
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, Jr. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Ruttenberg IP Law's (hereinafter "RIPL") Motion to File Under Seal (ECF No. 146), filed on June 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their Response on June 15, 2016. (ECF No. 148). RIPL requests leave to file its reply in support of motion to enforce lien and exhibits 9 through 31 attached thereto under seal because Defendants eGtran Corporation and EZconn Corporation, RIPL's former clients, "[did] not waive their privil..
More
ORDER
GEORGE FOLEY, Jr., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Ruttenberg IP Law's (hereinafter "RIPL") Motion to File Under Seal (ECF No. 146), filed on June 13, 2016. Plaintiffs filed their Response on June 15, 2016. (ECF No. 148).
RIPL requests leave to file its reply in support of motion to enforce lien and exhibits 9 through 31 attached thereto under seal because Defendants eGtran Corporation and EZconn Corporation, RIPL's former clients, "[did] not waive their privilege" and "[did] not authorize [RIPL] to file the documents, redacted or otherwise, or to disclose their content." Motion (ECF No. 146), pg. 2, lns 13-15. RIPL provides that it "takes no position as to whether or not its Reply Brief and supporting materials should be filed under seal." Id. at pg. 3, lns 9-10.
There is a strong presumption of public access to judicial records. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). For non-dispositive motions, a party seeking to seal a judicial record must meet the "good cause" standard under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 1179. Under Rule 26( c), "[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." See id. at 1180. Rule 26( c) requires the moving party to make a "particularized showing" of good cause. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1138 (9th cir. 2003). Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples of articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test. Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int'l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992).
RIPL does not identify any of the specific information that should be sealed, but represents that Defendants object to the filing of confidential client communications or documents. RIPL shall file a redacted version of its reply in support of its motion to enforce lien and exhibits 9-31 attached thereto in the open record. The Court grants RIPL leave to file the unredacted version of its reply in support of its motion to enforce lien and exhibits attached thereto under seal. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that RIPL's Motion to File Under Seal (ECF No. 146) is granted as stated in this order.
