International Union of Operating Engineers, Stationary Engineers Local 39 Pension Trust Fund v. The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation et al
Filing
72
ORDER ENTERING PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS. Signed by Judge Alsup on January 5, 2012. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A: Protective Order)(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2012)
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
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING
ENGINEERS, STATIONARY ENGINEERS
LOCAL 39 PENSION TRUST FUND,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
No. C 11-03620 WHA
ORDER ENTERING
PROTECTIVE ORDER
SUBJECT TO
STATED CONDITIONS
v.
THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
CORPORATION, et al.,
16
Defendants.
17
/
18
The parties request entry of a protective order in this action. The parties have not been
19
able to reach agreement on a proposed stipulated protective order. Because the Court deems it
20
to be appropriate, the model stipulated protective order for standard litigation (appended as
21
Exhibit A and modified to omit reference to stipulation) which has been approved by the
22
Northern District of California is hereby ENTERED, subject to the following conditions,
23
including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s strict caution against sealing orders (as set out
24
below):
25
1.
The parties must make a good-faith determination that any
26
information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c)
27
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as
28
“confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there
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: January 5, 2012.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?