EIT Holdings LLC v. Yelp!, Inc. et al

Filing 130

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS re 129 Stipulation filed by Yelp!, Inc.. Signed by Judge Alsup on October 6, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/6/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

12
13
14

No. C 10-05623 WHA

EIT HOLDINGS LLC, a Delaware company,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER APPROVING
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER SUBJECT TO
STATED CONDITIONS

YELP!, INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
/

15
16

The stipulated protective order submitted by the parties is hereby APPROVED, subject to

17

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

18

sealing orders (as set out below):

19

1.

The parties must make a good-faith determination that any

20

information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c)

21

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as

22

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

23

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

24

all or most materials on a wholesale basis.

25

2.

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires an

3

individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer

4

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, and

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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 are

20

warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material should be

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable to be stricken in

28

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.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13
14

Dated: October 6, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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