Unico Mechanical Corp. v. Harris
2:15-cv-00996
E.D. Cal.Apr 5, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Unico Mechanical Corp., Jam Ac (Temp) California Corp., Alfred Conhagen, Inc.) sued state officials; State Building and Construction Trades Council intervened.
- Parties filed a joint discovery-dispute statement and defendants filed a request to seal certain filings.
- Plaintiffs disputed adequacy of defendants’ meet-and-confer efforts on discovery; court enforces strict meet-and-confer requirement.
- Defendants relied on a stipulated protective order designating materials as "CONFIDENTIAL" and asked the court to seal filings.
- Court explained Local Rule 141 requires a written request showing statutory or other authority to seal and emphasized the presumption of public access to court records.
- Court continued the hearing, ordered additional meet-and-confer efforts, required a renewed sealing request addressing applicable standards, and set deadlines for joint discovery statement and the renewed sealing request.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of meet-and-confer before motion to compel | Defendants did not meaningfully meet and confer on most disputed discovery issues | Parties had met (defendants say) and filed joint statement | Court found meet-and-confer insufficient; continued hearing and ordered more conferring |
| Standard for sealing court filings | Public access presumption favors denial of sealing | Protective order labeling materials "CONFIDENTIAL" justifies sealing | Stipulation alone insufficient; Local Rule 141 requires a written request showing authority and applicable legal standard |
| Legal standard to justify sealing | N/A (arg implicitly that less than compelling reasons suffice given protective order) | Asked court to seal under protective order procedures | Court reiterated presumption of access; compelling reasons required for materials central to merits; good cause may suffice for tangential materials; defendants must address these standards in renewed request |
| Procedural compliance and scheduling | N/A | Asked to proceed with motion and sealing as filed | Court continued motion, set deadlines: renewed sealing request by April 27, 2016; joint discovery statement by May 4, 2016; hearing on May 11, 2016 |
Key Cases Cited
- Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (establishes strong presumption of public access to court records and explains sealing standards)
- Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2003) (addresses public access and standards for sealing)
- United States v. Amodeo, 71 F.3d 1044 (2d Cir. 1995) (discusses rationale for public access and accountability of courts)
- Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (requires compelling reasons to seal materials that affect the merits)