Rivera, et al v. Nibco Inc, et al

Filing 808

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE LIMITED SURREPLY. It is ORDERED: Defendant shall file a surreply, addressing the issues above, no later than April 19, 2024. The Court will hear oral argument on Plaintiffs' Motion on Thursday 5/16/2024 at 10:00 AM via VIDEO CONFERENCE. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Helena M. Barch-Kuchta on 4/5/2024. (Apodaca, P)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARTHA RIVERA, et al.,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 1:99-cv-06443-JLT-HBK
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO FILE
LIMITED SURREPLY

v.
APRIL 19, 2024 DEADLINE
NIBCO INC, et al.,
ARGUMENT: MAY 16, 2024 at 10:00 A.M.
Defendants.

16
17

Pending before the Court is the Administrative Motion to Unseal Certain Filing filed on

18

January 29, 2024 by Christopher Ho, former counsel for the plaintiffs. (Doc. No. 794, “Motion”).

19

Defendant Nibco filed a Response to the Motion, in which it does not oppose to the unsealing of

20

the requested documents, but conditions to do so on extensive redactions, each of which it

21

contends are supported by “good cause.” (See Doc. No. 802). In Reply, Ho asserts that

22

Defendant’s proposed redactions must be justified under the more demanding “compelling

23

reasons” standard to rebut the presumption of public access to documents related to a dispositive

24

motion. (See Doc. No. 807) (citing Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1175

25

(9th Cir. 2006). Ho also contends that Nibco has already waived protection of many subjects for

26

which it seeks to apply redactions because the issues were discussed in open court at trial, as

27

reflected in trial transcripts attached to the Reply. (Doc. No. 807 at 5-6). Oral argument on the

28

Motion is also requested.

1
2

To frame the issues for oral argument, the Court directs Nibco to file a brief surreply
responding to the following issues:

3

1) Whether it agrees or disagrees that the proposed redactions must be justified by
“compelling reasons” to rebut the presumption in favor of public access.

4
5

2) If it agrees, which of its proposed redactions remain justified by compelling reasons,

6

and what are those reasons?

7

3) Given that many of the proposed redactions involve matters that were discussed at

8

trial, why should reference to those matters not now be unsealed?

9

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

10

1. Defendant shall file a surreply, addressing the issues above, no later than April 19,

11

2024.
2. The Court will hear oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion on Thursday, May 16, 2024

12
13

at 10:00 A.M. via VIDEO CONFERENCE.

14
15

Dated:

April 5, 2024
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2