Hudson v. First Transit, Inc.

Filing 55

ORDER APPROVING AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS. Signed by Judge Alsup on June 23, 2011. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

ADRIENNE HUDSON, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

No. C 10-03158 WHA

ORDER APPROVING AMENDED
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS

v.
FIRST TRANSIT, INC.,
Defendant.
/

16
17

The parties have submitted an “amended stipulation of confidentiality and [proposed]

18

protective order.” A protective order has already been in effect in this action since November

19

2010 (Dkt. Nos. 28–29). A review of the parties’ new submission reveals only one proposed

20

addition, in paragraph 19, which states: “A third party that provides documents or information to

21

any party in connection with the action will have the same rights under the Protective Order as the

22

parties to this action.” This addition is APPROVED, except that it shall not be construed to

23

prohibit a third party from seeking additional protections.

24

In addition, the amended stipulated protective order is generally APPROVED, subject to the

25

following conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s strict caution against sealing

26

orders (as set out below):

27
28

1.

The parties must make a good-faith determination that any

information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as

1

“confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there

2

is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an order un-designating

3

all or most materials on a wholesale basis.

4

2.

In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the

5

Court must be lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil

6

Local Rule 79-5. Please limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly

7

tailored portions of materials for which good cause to seal exists. Please include

8

all other portions of your materials in the public file and clearly indicate therein

9

where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires an
individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are not allowed

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

by Civil Local Rule 79-5.

12

3.

Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and

13

unredacted — so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief

14

or declaration. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which

15

portions are confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be

16

handled like all other chambers copies of materials without special restriction, and

17

will typically be recycled, not shredded.

18

4.

In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006),

19

the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons”

20

are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling

21

reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial.

22

Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be

23

unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed

24

on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant

25

first shows a “compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good

26

cause.” This will be true regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are

27

warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material should be

28

completely open to public view. Only social security numbers, names of
2

1

juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling

2

nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom

3

would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment

4

proceedings, which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also

5

part of the trial and must likewise be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please

6

comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable to be stricken in their

7

entirety.

8
9

Any confidential materials used openly in court hearings or trial

will not be treated in any special manner absent a further order.
6.

This order does not preclude any party from moving to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

5.

undesignate information or documents that have been designated as confidential.

12

The party seeking to designate material as confidential has the burden of

13

establishing that the material is entitled to protection.

14

7.

The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the

15

proposed and stipulated protective order for only NINETY DAYS after final

16

termination of the action.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: June 23, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3