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