In re LDK Solar Securities Litigation

Filing 505

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS by Judge Alsup denying #405 Motion ; denying #411 Motion ; denying #418 Motion ; granting #429 Motion to Seal Document ; denying #431 Motion ; denying #441 Motion to Seal Document ; denying #442 Motion ; denying #446 Motion to Seal Document ; denying #448 Motion to Seal Document ; denying #451 Motion to Seal Document ; denying #453 Motion to Seal Document ; denying #455 Motion to Seal Document ; denying #458 Motion to Seal Document ; denying #472 Motion to Seal Document ; granting #482 Motion ; denying #492 Motion (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/18/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN RE LDK SOLAR SECURITIES LITIGATION. / This Document Relates to: All Actions. / IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

No. C 07-05182 WHA

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO SEAL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS

The parties have filed twenty-eight motions to seal various documents related to defendants' motion for summary judgment and motions in limine to exclude plaintiff's expert witnesses, and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment. As clearly stated in the Court's "Order Approving Amended Protective Order Subject to Stated Conditions" (Dkt. No. 130), the Ninth Circuit requires compelling reasons to seal documents used in dispositive motions and motions in limine, just as compelling reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial. The parties were therefore on notice that no request for a sealing order would be allowed on summary judgment motions or motions in limine unless the movant first showed a compelling reason, a substantially higher standard than "good cause." This is true regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Only social security numbers, names of juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling nature (like the recipe for Coca-Cola, for example) will qualify. The parties have put forward compelling reasons to seal only a few of the documents which they have sought to seal in connection with these motions. Defendants' motion to file

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

under seal exhibits A­G, I­K and M to the declaration of Jack Lai in support of defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 358) is GRANTED because the sealed exhibits contain bank account numbers and related highly sensitive financial information. Lead plaintiff's motion to seal his opposition to defendants' motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 429) is GRANTED because the sealed documents contain private personal information of third parties. Defendants' motion to seal certain declarations in support of their reply memorandum in support of their motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 482) is GRANTED because the sealed documents contain private email addresses and telephone numbers. Because no compelling reasons were put forth by either party as to why the other identified documents should be filed under seal, the parties' other motions to seal (Dkt. Nos. 336, 361, 364, 366, 368, 372, 377, 383, 390, 393, 397, 405, 411, 418, 431, 441, 442, 446, 448, 451, 453, 455, 458, 472 and 492) are DENIED.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 18, 2010.

WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2