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)

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