Labrador v. Seattle Mortgage Company

Filing 95

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying 88 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (sclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2010)

Labrador v. Seattle Mortgage Company

Doc. 95

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MARY LABRADOR, individually and on ) Case No. 08-2270 SC behalf of all others similarly ) situated, ) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ) SECOND ADMINISTRATIVE Plaintiff, ) MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL ) v. ) ) SEATTLE MORTGAGE COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. ) ) Plaintiff Mary Labrador ("Plaintiff") brings this administrative motion to file under seal certain documents designated as confidential by Defendant Seattle Mortgage Company ("Defendant"). ECF No. 89 ("Mot."). Specifically, Plaintiff seeks IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to file under seal Exhibits H, I, J, K, and L attached in support of her Motion for Class Certification. Class Cert."). ECF. No. 75 ("Mot. for

These documents were produced by Defendant in

discovery, and Plaintiff brings this Motion "solely to give Defendant . . . an opportunity to establish that the documents, which were produced and designated 'Confidential' by SMC, should be filed under seal." Mot. at 1.

The Motion is Plaintiff's second motion to file these documents under seal; the Court denied her July 23, 2010 motion because no protective order was in place, instructing Plaintiff to

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
For the Northern District of California

re-file her motion once the parties agreed to and the Court signed a protective order. ECF No. 79. The Court subsequently ordered

Plaintiff to refile this motion, instructing Defendant to respond to the motion "in accordance with Rule 79-5 and General Order 62." ECF No. 87 ("Sept. 1, 2010 Order") at 6. Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) requires a party seeking to file a document designated as confidential by another party to file an administrative motion with the court. The designating party then

has seven days to preserve the document's confidentiality by filing and serving a "declaration establishing that the designated information is sealable" and "a narrowly tailored proposed sealing order." The Rule further states: "If the designating party does

United States District Court

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

not file its responsive declaration as required by this subsection, the document or proposed filing will be made part of the public record." Id. As such,

Defendant has not complied with these requirements. the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to file Defendant's documents under seal.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-

5(d), Plaintiff shall publicly e-file complete and unredacted versions of Exhibits H, I, J, K, and L to Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2