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)

Download PDF
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?