Plichta v. Sunpower Corporation et al

Filing 202

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying without prejudice 199 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 13 Case No.: 09-cv-5473 RS (JSC) IN RE: SUNPOWER SECURITIES LITIGATION, ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Dkt. No. 199) 14 15 16 17 18 Now pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to file Plaintiffs’ 19 Motion to Compel Discovery under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5. (Dkt. No. 199.) Plaintiffs’ 20 motion does not comply with Local Rule 79-5 and is therefore DENIED without prejudice. 21 Local Rule 79-5 states that “the request must be narrowly tailored to seek sealing only 22 of sealable material, and must conform with Civil L.R. 79-5(b) or (c).” Here, although the hard 23 copies of the motion and exhibits thereto include a redacted version of the motion to compel as 24 well as some exhibits which are not confidential, Plaintiffs appear to seek sealing of the entire 25 motion to compel and all exhibits thereto: their proposed order directs that the entire motion 26 to compel and all the exhibits to the supporting declaration be filed under seal. (Dkt. No. 199- 27 2.) This proposal does not comport with the requirement of Local Rule 79-5 that a request for 28 sealing be narrowly tailored. 1 Further, and assuming that Plaintiffs do not contend that all of the exhibits and the material as confidential must “file with the Court and serve a declaration establishing that the 4 designated information is sealable, and must lodge and serve a narrowly tailored proposed 5 sealing order, or must withdraw the designation of confidentiality.” See L.R. 79-5(d); see also 6 79-5(c) (1). Here, the declaration accompanying Plaintiffs’ motion to seal generally asserts 7 that the motion and exhibits “contain information marked ‘confidential’ or have been marked 8 ‘confidential’ by parties and non-parties pursuant to the Protective Order.” (Dkt. No. 199-1 9 ¶¶ 2-3). Local Rule 79-5(a) provides that “a stipulation. . . will not suffice to allow the filing of 10 documents under seal.” Reference to the Stipulated Protective Order is therefore not a proper 11 Northern District of California entire motion to compel are sealable, Local Rule 79-5 provides that the party which designated 3 United States District Court 2 basis from which the Court can infer that sealing is warranted. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ request 12 does not comply with the language of the Stipulated Protective Order which states that “a 13 sealing order will issue only upon a request establishing that the Protected Material at issue is 14 privileged, protectable as a trade secret, or otherwise entitled to protection under the law,” 15 (Dkt. No. 197 12:9-11), language which is also included in the governing Local Rule. See L.R. 16 79-5(a). To be sufficient, the required declaration must establish why portions of each 17 document or exhibit are confidential and therefore should be filed under seal. 18 Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Administrative Motion to Seal (Dkt. No. 199) is DENIED without 19 prejudice. Plaintiffs may file a renewed motion to seal which complies with Local Rule 79-5, the 20 Stipulated Protective Order, this Court’s Standing Order, and this Order. Further, the chambers 21 copies of any documents, including those pleadings Plaintiffs seek to file under seal, shall be 22 filed in accordance with this Court’s Standing Order and shall be assembled together and 23 submitted in one envelope marked “Chambers Copy – Filed Under Seal.” 24 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 23, 2012 _________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 2

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?