Burgoyne v. Kronenberger et al

Filing 207

ORDER by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte terminating 144 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; terminating 149 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; terminating 159 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; terminating 163 Administr ative Motion to File Under Seal; terminating 165 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; terminating 179 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; terminating 183 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, and setting deadline to file consolidated stipulation and order regarding sealing request. (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/14/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

HENRY M. BURGOYNE III,
Plaintiff,

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C -11-06376 EDL
ORDER REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS TO SEAL
(DOCKET NUMBERS 144, 149, 159, 163,
165, 179, 183)

v.
KARL M. KRONENBERGER,
Defendant.

12

/

13
14

In connection with the parties’ summary judgment briefing, the parties have filed numerous

15

Administrative Motions to Seal various exhibits and portions of the summary judgment briefs

16

referring to those exhibits. The Court has reviewed the parties’ Administrative Motions and issues

17

the following order.

18

In general, the parties’ motions are overbroad and seek to seal some documents that are not

19

sealable. See Civil L.R. 79-5. The Court has reviewed the documents sought to be sealed and

20

provides the following examples of sealable and non-sealable documents. These examples are not

21

exhaustive and are meant to assist the parties in narrowing the documents that should be sealed.

22

Examples of documents that are sealable include the termination accounting (see, e.g. Quintana

23

Decl. In Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. Ex. U), and the proposed payout calculation for Plaintiff

24

(see, e.g., Burgoyne Decl. in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. Ex. O). The list containing firm

25

clients and how they became clients (see, e.g., Burgoyne Decl. in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J.

26

at Ex. B) is partially sealable; only the client names or other identifying information, if any, may be

27

redacted.

28

Examples of documents that are not sealable, in whole or in part, include the partnership
agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant (see, e.g., Quintana Decl. In Supp. of Mot. for Partial

1

Summ. J. Ex. A), the 2008 accounting of the firm’s advertising and marketing costs (see, e.g.,

2

Burgoyne Decl. in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. Ex. A), and the email chain between Plaintiff

3

and Defendant regarding potential changes in firm management (see, e.g., Burgoyne Decl. in Supp.

4

of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. Ex. I). In addition, the Memorandum of Understanding between

5

Defendant and Rosenfeld should be filed unsealed except that the dollar amounts and other specific

6

numerical information relating to third party Rosenfeld’s draw may be redacted to protect third party

7

privacy, especially because the redacted information is not necessary to resolve the summary

8

judgment motions.
With this guidance, the parties shall meet and confer and agree to withdraw the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

confidentiality designation of the non-sealable documents identified in this Order and similar

11

documents. No later than June 21, 2013, the parties shall file one comprehensive, narrowly-tailored

12

stipulated sealing request (with a proposed order) that encompasses all of the exhibits and briefs that

13

are sealable or subject to redaction based on the Court’s guidance in this Order. The Court notes

14

that even documents that are sealable at the summary judgment stage may well not be sealable at

15

trial.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
Dated: June 14, 2013
18

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Chief Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2