Tuttle et al v. Sky Bell Asset Management LLC et al

Filing 156

ORDER APPROVING 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
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

EDGAR W. TUTTLE, ERIC BRAUN, THE
BRAUN FAMILY TRUST, and WENDY
MEG SIEGEL, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

12

No. C 10-03588 WHA
13
14

v.
SKY BELL ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC,
et al.,

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO
STATED CONDITIONS

15
Defendants.
/

16
17

The stipulated protective order submitted by the parties is hereby APPROVED, subject to
18
the following conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s strict caution against
19
sealing orders (as set out below):
20
1.

The parties must make a good-faith determination that any

21
information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c)
22
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as
23
“confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there
24
is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an order
25
un-designating all or most materials on a wholesale basis.
26
2.

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

27
Court must be lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with
28
Civil Local Rule 79-5. Please limit your requests for sealing to only those
narrowly tailored portions of materials for which good cause to seal exists.

1

Please include all other portions of your materials in the public file and clearly

2

indicate therein where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing

3

requires an individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are

4

not allowed by Civil Local Rule 79-5.

5

3.

Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and

6

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

7

or declaration. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which

8

portions are confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be

9

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

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

and will typically be recycled, not shredded.
4.

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

are warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material

21

should be completely open to public view. Only social security numbers, names

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

in limine are also part of the trial and must likewise be laid bare absent

27

compelling reasons. Please comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable

28

to be stricken in their entirety.
2

1
2
3

5.

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

4

undesignate information or documents that have been designated as confidential.

5

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

6

establishing that the material is entitled to protection.

7

7.

The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the

8

proposed and stipulated protective order for only NINETY DAYS after final

9

termination of the action.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: June 23, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3