Brady et al v. Deloitte & Touche LLP et al

Filing 240

ORDER to unseal Solis Briefs (tfS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2011)

Case3:08-cv-00177-SI Document239

1
2
3
4
5
6

Filed10/26/11 Page1 of 4

LINDA E. SHOSTAK (CA SBN 64599)
[e-mail]
JAMES E. BODDY, JR. (CA SBN 65244)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
Attorneys for Defendant
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP
Jeffrey K. Compton (SBN 142969)
Daria Dub Carlson (SBN 150628)
William A. Baird (SBN 192675)
17383 Sunset Boulevard, Suite A380
Pacific Palisades, California 90272
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ELSTER
Steven Elster (SBN 227545)
785/E2 Oak Grove Road, #201
Concord, CA 94518-3617
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

15
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Certified Class
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

19
20
21

JAMES BRADY, SARAH CAVANAGH, and
IVA CHIU, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

22
23
24

Case No.

C-08-00177-SI

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO UNSEAL SOLIS BRIEFS

v.
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, a limited liability
partnership; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

25
Defendants
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO UNSEAL SOLIS BRIEFS
C-08-00177 SI
sf-3049065

1

Case3:08-cv-00177-SI Document239

1

Filed10/26/11 Page2 of 4

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12, Plaintiffs and Defendant Deloitte & Touche LLP

2

(“Defendant”), through their respective counsel, submit the following stipulation and [proposed]

3

order that certain pleadings, as described below, conditionally filed with the Court under seal be

4

unsealed.

5

WHEREAS, in the course of the discovery Defendant has produced and disclosed

6

confidential, proprietary, and other private information related to the parties, as well as

7

Defendant’s clients, designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only”

8

pursuant to the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order signed by the Court on March 10, 2009, and

9

filed in the above captioned action on March 11, 2009 (“Designated Produced Materials”), for

10

which Defendant believes special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose

11

other than prosecuting this litigation would be warranted;

12

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that material designated as confidential, proprietary,

13

and other private information related to the parties, as well as Defendant’s clients, may be

14

included in or discussed in the parties’ filings with respect to Defendant’s Motion for Class

15

Decertification (“Designated Motion Materials”);

16

WHEREAS, the parties agreed and the Court ordered pursuant to the parties’ stipulations

17

and proposed orders that Plaintiffs’ Briefing re Solis v. Washington and Plaintiffs’ Reply to

18

Deloitte’s Briefing re Solis v. Washington (collectively, “Solis Briefs”) be conditionally filed

19

under seal;

20

WHEREAS, the parties agreed that they would meet and confer regarding whether the

21

documents filed under seal pursuant to said stipulations and orders should remain under seal; and

22

WHEREAS, the parties, having met and conferred, have agreed that the Court may order

23

the Solis Briefs filed under seal to be unsealed, without prejudice to either parties’ rights to

24

maintain or not maintain under seal any other briefs or documents filed with the Court under seal

25

and that said order shall not affect the under-seal status of any other briefs or documents filed

26

with the Court under seal, including without limitation any exhibits referred to in the Solis Briefs.

27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO UNSEAL SOLIS BRIEFS
C-08-00177 SI
sf-3049065

2

Case3:08-cv-00177-SI Document239

1
2

Filed10/26/11 Page3 of 4

NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereby stipulate, subject to Court approval, that the
following briefs conditionally filed under seal herein be unsealed:

3

1.

Plaintiffs’ Briefing re Solis v. Washington; and

4

2.

Plaintiffs’ Reply to Deloitte’s Briefing re Solis v. Washington.

5
6

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

7
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

8
9
10

DATE: October 26, 2011

11
12
13

By: __/S/ James E. Boddy
Linda E. Shostak
James E. Boddy, Jr.
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS

14
15

DATE: October 26, 2011

16
17
18

By: _/s/ William A. Baird_
William A. Baird
Daria Dub Carlson
Jeffrey K. Compton
MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON, LLP
Steven Elster
LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN ELSTER

19
20
21
22
23

ECF CERTIFICATION
I hereby attest that I have obtained concurrence regarding the filing of this document from
each of the signatories within the e-filed document.

24
25
26

DATE: October 26, 2011

By: _/s/ James E. Boddy_____
James E. Boddy

27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO UNSEAL SOLIS BRIEFS
C-08-00177 SI
sf-3049065

3

Case3:08-cv-00177-SI Document239

1

Filed10/26/11 Page4 of 4

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

2
3
4

10/27/11
DATED: ________________

____________________________
Honorable Susan Illston
United States District Court Judge

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO UNSEAL SOLIS BRIEFS
C-08-00177 SI
sf-3049065

4