The federal courts have held that what is "good cause" for a protective order to keep a document or testimony from seeing the light of day is essentially the same amount of "good cause" needed to seal that evidence. The good cause must be shown by evidence in the record and not merely contended by assertions of counsel or their clients whether in litigation between businesses or in any other type of litigation. See, e.g., Villery v. Beard, No. 1:15-cv-00987-DAD-BAM (PC), 2018 WL 6304410, at *4 (E.D. Cal. December 3, 2018) (in civil rights action filed by a state prisoner, McAuliffe, USMJ, recognized that "good cause" is the standard "which applies to [sealing] non-dispositive discovery type motions" and holding that good cause was shown regarding "confidential health information and confidential investigatory information obtained from witness interviews, and in the absence of any objection"); Contour IP Holdings, LLC v. GoPro, Inc., No. 17-cv-04738-WHO, 2018 WL 6574188, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. December 12, 2018) (Orrick, USDJ, holding in a patent infringement action that good cause was not provided "to warrant preserving the secrecy of sealed discovery material attached to nondispositive motions.").
It's all in the showing of good cause. Or the lack of a showing of good cause.
Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2018 Dennis J. Wall. All Rights Reserved.
Comments