Allen, et al v. City of Oakland, et al

Filing 667

ORDER by Judge Thelton E. Henderson denying 659 Plaintiffs' motion to file December 14, 2011 letter under seal. (tehlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2011)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 DELPHINE ALLEN, et al., 6 7 8 Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF OAKLAND, et al., 9 MASTER CASE FILE NO. C00-4599 TEH ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE DECEMBER 14, 2011 LETTER UNDER SEAL Defendants. 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 On December 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal a 12 letter concerning two promotions and one appointment recently made by Defendants. 13 Plaintiffs represent that Intervenor Oakland Police Officers’ Association agrees that the filing 14 should be made under seal. Defendants filed a timely opposition to the motion, but their 15 opposition was to the filing, and not the filing under seal, of the letter. Plaintiffs filed an 16 unsolicited reply. 17 Civil Local Rule 79-5(a) provides that a filing may be made under seal only if the 18 request to do so “establishes that the document, or portions thereof, is privileged or 19 protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Such requests 20 “must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” Civ. L.R. 79-5(a). 21 In this case, Plaintiffs have failed to make the requisite showing. For example, 22 Defendants’ opposition, which was not filed under seal, names the individuals whose 23 promotions and appointment formed the basis for Plaintiffs’ letter. In addition, much of 24 Plaintiffs’ letter refers to events that occurred in other court proceedings, and there is no 25 indication that those proceedings were sealed from the public. Beyond that, Plaintiffs’ reply 26 discusses, in a public filing, some of the issues raised in the letter that Plaintiffs seek to file 27 under seal. All of the above indicates that at least some portions, if not all, of Plaintiffs’ 28 December 14, 2011 letter need not be filed under seal. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to file 1 under seal is DENIED without prejudice. If Plaintiffs so desire, they may re-submit a 2 narrowly tailored request that complies with Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). 3 Defendants correctly observe that the letter Plaintiffs seek to file under seal appears to 4 request no remedy. Indeed, Plaintiffs confirm in their reply that they are not seeking any 5 remedy at this time, and instead simply wanted to give Defendants additional time to respond 6 prior to the January 26, 2012 status conference. Although the Court acknowledges Plaintiffs’ 7 efforts to inform the Court of developments they deem significant, the Court neither requires 8 nor expects a substantive responsive filing from Defendants, nor does the Court intend to 9 address these matters at this time. As the parties are aware, they must meet and confer and file a joint status conference 11 statement on or before January 19, 2012. They should fully discuss the issues raised by For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 Plaintiffs, and all other relevant issues, during the meet-and-confer process, and include a 13 discussion of all such issues in their joint statement. The Court does not expect any party to 14 raise new issues at the status conference unless those issues could not have been raised prior 15 to the filing of the joint statement. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 Dated: 12/22/11 20 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?