Juarez et al v. Jani-King of California, Inc. et al

Filing 71

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti denying 64 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2010)

Juarez et al v. Jani-King of California, Inc. et al

Doc. 71

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ALEJANDRO JUAREZ, MARIA JUAREZ, LUIS A. ROMERO and MARIA PORTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JANI-KING OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a Texas corporation, JANI-KING, INC., a Texas corporation, JANIKING INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Texas corporation, and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 09-3495 SC ORDER RE: DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL 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

Plaintiffs Alejandro Juarez et al. ("Plaintiffs") brought an Administrative Motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) to file under seal certain documents designated as confidential by Defendant Jani-King of California, Inc. ("Defendant"). ("Motion"). ECF No. 64

Plaintiffs sought to file these documents in ECF No. 52. On

connection with its Motion to Certify the Class.

August 2, 2010, Defendant filed a Statement of Non-Opposition, stating it "had no opposition to Plaintiff's Administrative Motion to File under Seal Documents in Connection with Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification." ECF No. 70.

Dockets.Justia.com

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

Defendant's Statement of Non-Opposition demonstrates an unfamiliarity with or misunderstanding of Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). This rule 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." Id. "If the

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

United States District Court

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

Plaintiffs have sought to file thousands of pages of documents that Defendant designated confidential. If Defendant had no

opposition to these documents being filed under seal, it should have filed a responsive declaration within seven days of Plaintiffs' Motion. It has not done so. For these reasons,

Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to file documents under seal is DENIED. Plaintiffs shall publicly e-file the documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2