Watkins et al v. Avalonbay Communities, Inc. et al

1
25CV1119-AJB (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARK WATKINS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES, INC,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25CV1119-AJB (BLM)
ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL
ECF No. 45
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion to File Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of Motion
to Compel Further Discovery Responses Under Seal. 	ECF No. 45. 	Defendant has not filed an
opposition to this motion. 	See Docket. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS
Plaintiffs’ Motion to File Under Seal.
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2025, this action was removed from San Diego Superior Court to this Court.
ECF No. 1. 	Defendant filed their answer on May 30, 2025. 	ECF No. 9. 	The Court held a Case
Management Conference on August 25, 2025 and issued a Scheduling Order on August 27,
2025. ECF Nos. 16, 17. In this Scheduling Order, the parties were required to file a joint motion
for a protective order. ECF No. 17 at 1. On September 15, 2025, the Court granted the parties’
stipulated protective order (“SPO”). ECF No. 21.
On October 16, 2025, counsel for Plaintiffs contacted the Court to request an informal
Case 3:25-cv-01119-AJB-JAC Doc 47 Filed 12/03/25 PageID.<pageID> Pg 1/3

2
25CV1119-AJB (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
discovery conference call with the undersigned’s Judicial Law Clerk regarding a discovery
dispute. 	See Honorable Barbara L. Major Chambers Rules – Civil Cases, Rule V.B. 	The
conference was held and based on the information provided by both Plaintiffs’ counsel and
Defendant’s counsel, the Court issued a briefing schedule on October 23, 2025 setting forth
dates by which Plaintiffs were to file a motion to compel further discovery responses and a date
for Defendant to file an opposition. ECF No. 28.
Plaintiffs filed their motion to compel further discovery responses on November 3, 2025.
ECF No. 29. 	Simultaneously, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte motion to seal a portion of the motion
to compel. 	ECF No. 30. 	The Court granted this motion on November 5, 2025. 	ECF No. 32.
Defendant filed its opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel on November 17, 2025. ECF No.
34. 	Defendant also filed a motion to seal portions of its opposition. 	ECF No. 35. 	The Court
granted this motion on November 19, 2025.1 ECF No. 37. On December 1, 2025, Plaintiffs filed
a motion to seal portions of the reply to the opposition. ECF No. 45. Plaintiffs’ reply “references
materials that Defendant designated as confidential under the [SPO]” as well as citations to
“declarations and policy documents that Defendant designated confidential and submitted in
support of its Opposition.” See Declaration of Jimmie Davis Parker (“Parker Decl.”), ECF No. 45-
1 at ¶ 2. 	The parties have met conferred and “[n]either party opposed filing of said material
under seal.” Id. at ¶ 4.
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Plaintiffs seek an order sealing Plaintiffs’ unredacted Reply in Support of Motion to Compel
Further Responses. 	ECF 45. 	In accordance with the undersigned’s Chambers Rules, Plaintiffs
lodged a unredacted version of the Reply in Support of Motion to Compel Further Responses.
ECF No. 46.
“For discovery motions attached to non-dispositive motions and filed under seal pursuant
to a valid protective order, ‘the usual presumption of the public’s right of access [to court filings
is rebutted].’” Orthopaedic Hospital v. Encore Medical, L.P., 2021 WL 5449041, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
Nov. 19, 2021) (quoting Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206,
1 The Court also granted Defendant’s request to file a revised opposition under seal after
“discovering a substantive typo” in the original opposition. See ECF No. 42.
Case 3:25-cv-01119-AJB-JAC Doc 47 Filed 12/03/25 PageID.<pageID> Pg 2/3

3
25CV1119-AJB (BLM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1213 (9th Cir. 2002)). 	Thus, a showing of good cause is sufficient under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 26(c). 	Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir.
2006). Here, the underlying motion relates to a non-dispositive dispute regarding discovery
responses; thus, the good cause standard applies. In addition, Plaintiffs’ reply relies on
“Defendant’s discovery responses and evidence it submitted in support of its Opposition” that
was deemed confidential under the parties’ SPO and the Court permitted portions of the
opposition to be filed under seal. 	Parker Decl. at ¶ 2. 	Finally, the undersigned’s Chambers
Rules, which are incorporated in the parties’ protective order outlines, “[a] sealing order may
issue only upon a showing that the information is privileged or protectable under the law.” Major
Chambers Civil Rules VII, 2; ECF No. 21 at 6-7.
Based on the motion to file under seal [ECF No. 45], and for good cause shown, the
motion to seal is GRANTED and it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support of
Motion to Compel Further Responses be filed under seal [ECF No. 46].
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ ex parte motion to file documents under seal is
GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the unredacted version of Plaintiffs’ motion
[ECF No. 46] under seal. The redacted version of Plaintiffs’ reply [ECF No. 44] shall continue to
be filed in the public record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 12/3/2025
Case 3:25-cv-01119-AJB-JAC Doc 47 Filed 12/03/25 PageID.<pageID> Pg 3/3