Garvey v. Kmart Corporation
Filing
390
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED REQUEST TO SEAL AND GRANTING REQUEST FOR IN CAMERA REVIEW by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part #378 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/8/2013)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
12
13
No. C 11-02575 WHA
Plaintiff,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
COLLETTE DELBRIDGE, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated,
ORDER DENYING STIPULATED
REQUEST TO SEAL AND
GRANTING REQUEST FOR IN
CAMERA REVIEW
v.
KMART CORPORATION,
Defendant.
14
/
15
16
Pursuant to an order of the Court, plaintiff’s counsel Michael Righetti filed a declaration
17
explaining his role in the discovery process involving checkout stand designs (Dkt. No. 370). In
18
his declaration, Mr. Righetti references “newly-discovered” emails received from Kmart’s
19
counsel that suggest that Kmart was making incomplete productions. Prior to filing his
20
declaration, Mr. Righetti notified Kmart of his concerns regarding these emails. Kmart
21
attempted to claw them back on the grounds that they were inadvertently sent to Mr. Righetti and
22
subject to the work-product privilege. Mr. Righetti then filed his declaration without attaching
23
the emails.
24
The parties have filed a stipulation requesting that the portion of Mr. Righetti’s
25
declaration on the public docket that references the contents of these emails be sealed (Dkt. No.
26
378). This stipulation does not conform to the procedures for sealing documents in Local Rule
27
79-5 and on that basis is DENIED. The declaration shall remain on the public docket in
28
unredacted form.
The parties also jointly request that the Court review the underlying emails in camera
1
(although plaintiff’s counsel has already seen them), and Kmart represents that it will supply
2
additional information regarding the emails (which plaintiff’s counsel presumably has not seen)
3
as part of the in camera review. This request is GRANTED. Kmart shall lodge these documents
4
with the Court for in camera review by JULY 10 AT NOON. Whether they may be used by
5
plaintiff at the Rule 60 evidentiary hearing notwithstanding Kmart’s privilege objection will be
6
decided later.
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Dated: July 8, 2013.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?