International Longshore & Warehouse Union-Pacific Maritime Association Welfare Plan Board of Trustees et al v. South Gate Ambulatory Surgery Center, LLC et al

Filing 64

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS re 63 Stipulation, filed by International Longshore & Warehouse Union-Pacific Maritime Association Welfare Plan Board of Trustees, International Longshore & Warehouse Union-Pacific Maritime Association Welfare Plan. Signed by Judge Alsup on August 19, 2011. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2011)

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

12
13

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE &
WAREHOUSE UNION-PACIFIC
MARITIME ASSOCIATION WELFARE
PLAN BOARD OF TRUSTEES and
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE &
WAREHOUSE UNION-PACIFIC
MARITIME ASSOCIATION WELFARE PLAN,

14
15
16
17
18

No. C 11-01215 WHA

ORDER APPROVING
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER SUBJECT TO
STATED CONDITIONS

Plaintiffs,
v.
SOUTH GATE AMBULATORY
SURGERY CENTER, LLC, a California
limited liability company; JEFFREY T.
HO, M.D., an individual; STEWART
GOLDSTEIN, M.D., an individual; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

19
Defendant.
/

20
21

The stipulated protective order submitted by the parties is hereby APPROVED, subject to
22
the following conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s strict caution against
23
sealing orders (as set out below):
24
1.

The parties must make a good-faith determination that any

25
information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c)
26
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as
27
“confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there
28

1

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

2

all or most materials on a wholesale basis.

3

2.

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

allowed by Civil Local Rule 79-5.
3.

Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and

12

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

13

or declaration. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which

14

portions are confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be

15

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

16

will typically be recycled, not shredded.

17

4.

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material should be

27

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

28

juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable to be stricken in

6

their entirety.

7
8
9

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

undesignate information or documents that have been designated as confidential.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

12

establishing that the material is entitled to protection.

13

7.

The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the

14

proposed and stipulated protective order for only NINETY DAYS after final

15

termination of the action.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated: August 19, 2011.

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3