Alvaco, Inc. v. Veolia Transportation Services, Inc. et al

Filing 36

ORDER GRANTING IN PART APPLICATIONS TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL 35 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: The Court thus GRANTS Alvacos Application to seal Exhibit 9 and DENIES the Application to seal Exhibit 7. Alvaco shall electronically file Exhibit 7 on the public docket, and the Clerk of Court will file Exhibit 9 under seal. (lc). Modified on 6/5/2014 .(lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

ALVACO, INC.,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 2:13-cv-05159-ODW(FFMx)

v.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

14

VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION

APPLICATIONS TO FILE

15

SERVICES, INC.; DOES 1–50, inclusive,

EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL

16

Defendants.

17

The Court has received two submissions from Plaintiff Alvaco, Inc. in

18

connection with its opposition to Defendant Veolia Transportation Services, Inc.’s

19

Motion for Summary Judgment that purport to be filed under seal. (See ECF Nos. 30,

20

32.) These documents are Exhibits 7 and 9 to Alvaco’s Opposition. (Id.) Alvaco

21

contends that these documents must be filed under seal to comply with the parties’

22

stipulated protective order.

23

After Alvaco improperly manually filed these documents with prior approval,

24

the Court struck them and instructed Alvaco to follow the proper under-seal

25

procedures. (ECF No. 33.)

26

That evening, the Court received an email from Alvaco with an application to

27

seal the exhibits. But Alvaco did not file the application on the docket or indicate that

28

it wished to file the application itself under seal—again violating the Court’s under-

1

seal filing procedures. See FAQs about Judges’ Procedures and Schedules ¶ VVI,

2

available at http://tiny.cc/ODW_Under_Seal_Procedures. In any event, lest the Court

3

subject itself to another under-seal filing attempt, the Court will accept the improperly

4

submitted application.

5

The Court has reviewed Alvaco’s Exhibits 7 and 9 and finds no reason for

6

Exhibit 7 to be filed under seal. The Court is flying blind in this inquiry, as Alvaco

7

has not actually stated any substantive reason for sealing the documents. Of course,

8

the Court understands that it was really Veolia that wanted these documents sealed

9

and thus placed its “confidential” label on them. But the Court sees nothing in

10

Exhibit 7 that should be shielded from public view.

The Court thus GRANTS

11

Alvaco’s Application to seal Exhibit 9 and DENIES the Application to seal Exhibit 7.

12

Alvaco shall electronically file Exhibit 7 on the public docket, and the Clerk of Court

13

will file Exhibit 9 under seal.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

June 5, 2014

17
18
19

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2