Vieste, LLC et al v. Hill Redwood Development, LTD. et al
*** FILED IN ERROR. PLEASE SEE DOCKET # 320 . *** ORDER GRANTING IN PART 305 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Exhibits, 29, 37 and 40 In Support of Plaintiffs' Reply In Support of Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on May 18, 2011. (jswlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/18/2011) Modified on 5/18/2011 (hlk, COURT STAFF).
Filed05/16/11 Page1 of 2
JASON GELLER, SBN 168149
DAVID BOROVSKY, SBN 216588
MECKLER BULGER TILSON MARICK PEARSON LLP
575 Market Street, Suite 2200
San Francisco, California 94105
Tel: 415-644-0914 Fax: 415-644-0978
email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org
Attorneys for Defendants
HILL REDWOOD DEVELOPMENT, LTD., HILL
INTERNATIONAL, INC., HILL
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LTD.,
REDWOOD CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC,
STEPHEN GOODMAN, and S. DICK SARGON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
(1) VIESTE, LLC, an Indiana corporation; and,
(2) VIESTE DEVELOPMENT, LLC; an
(1) HILL REDWOOD DEVELOPMENT,
LTD., a British Virgin Islands corporation;
(2) HILL INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
(3) HILL INTERNATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT LTD., a British Virgin
(4) REDWOOD CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC,
a Delaware corporation;
(5) STEPHEN GOODMAN, individually; and
(6) S. DICK SARGON, individually;
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
EXCERPTS OF DEPOSITIONS AND
DOCUMENTS DESIGNATED AS
“CONFIDENTIAL” OR “HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’
EYES ONLY” UNDER SEAL
[LOCAL RULE 79-5(d); DKT. NO. 305]
Trial Date: August 8, 2011
Case No. C09-04024 JSW
AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIM.
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL
Filed05/16/11 Page2 of 2
Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(d), Defendant S. Dick Sargon (“Defendant”) has filed a
declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion For Leave To File Excerpts Of Depositions And
Documents Designated As “Confidential” Or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only”
Under Seal [Dkt. No. 305] (“Motion”). Defendant’s declaration follows this Court’s order [Dkt.
No. 310] denying without prejudice Plaintiffs’ Motion and requests that Exhibit 40, submitted by
Plaintiffs in support of their Reply to Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment [Dkt. No. 303] be filed under seal because it contains private financial information and
was produced and designated by defendants as “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under a
Protective Order in this action.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides broad discretion for a trial court to permit
sealing of court documents. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c). Civil Local Rule 79-5(a) also provides
that this Court may order documents sealed if they are “privileged or protectable as a trade secret
or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . .”
Defendant has filed a declaration required under Local Rule 79-5 to provide evidence of
good cause for this Court to permit filing under seal. That declaration establishes both that
defendants have considered and treated the information contained in the subject materials as
confidential and that public disclosure of such information would result in a particularized harm
or prejudice to Defendant. See Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir.
2006). Accordingly, for good cause shown, the Court ORDERS that the following document
shall be filed under seal:
Exhibit 40, which Plaintiffs seek to submit as an exhibit to the Declaration of
Patricia L. Peden [Dkt. No. 304] in support of Plaintiff’s Reply To Defendants Opposition to
Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Honorable Jeffrey S. White
United States District Judge
Exhibits 29 and 37 shall be filed in the public record.
Dated: May 18, 2011
The Court advises the parties that it shall rule on Defendants/Counterclaimants'
renewed motion to file excerpts of depositions under seal (Docket no. 296) filed on May
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL
13, 2011, when it resolves the motions for summary judgment.
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?