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. 35
Before the Court is Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion to File Portions of Defendant AvalonBay
Communities, Inc.’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses
Under Seal. ECF No. 35. Plaintiffs have not filed an opposition to this motion. See Docket. For
the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s 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 37 Filed 11/19/25 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 their opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to compel on November 17, 2025. ECF No.
34. Defendant also filed a motion to seal portions of its opposition. ECF No. 35. In this motion,
Defendant states the opposition “relies, in part, on declarations from AvalonBay personnel, and
certain written policy documents produced by AvalonBay, which are designated 	in whole or in
part as “CONFIDENTIAL” under the [SFO].” 	Id. at 3. Defendant further attests that disclosure
of these materials is “commercially sensitive, because disclosure may impact AvalonBay’s
competitive position in the multifamily industry.” Id.
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Defendant seeks an order sealing Defendant’s unredacted Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion
to Compel Further Responses. 	ECF No. 35. 	In accordance with the undersigned’s Chambers
Rules, Defendant lodged a unredacted version of the Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel
Further Responses. ECF No. 36.
“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,
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. The Court finds that Defendant has narrowly
Case 3:25-cv-01119-AJB-JAC Doc 37 Filed 11/19/25 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
tailored its request to seal only a portion of the opposition that contains “sensitive information
that, if made public, are likely to result in prejudice or competitive disadvantage.” ECF No. 35 at
4. Plaintiffs’ counsel was provided notice of this request to seal and Plaintiffs “do not oppose the
request.” 	See Decl. of Mathilda McGee-Tubb in Supp. Mtn. to Seal (“McGee-Tubb Decl.”), ECF
No. 35-1 at ¶ 3. 	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. 35], and for good cause shown, the
motion to seal is GRANTED and it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s Opposition be filed
under seal [ECF No. 36].
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s ex parte motion to file documents under seal is
GRANTED. 	The Clerk of the Court is directed to file the unredacted version of Defendant’s
opposition [ECF No. 36] under seal. 	The redacted version of Defendant’s opposition [ECF No.
34] shall continue to be filed in the public record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 11/18/2025
Case 3:25-cv-01119-AJB-JAC Doc 37 Filed 11/19/25 PageID.<pageID> Pg 3/3