Yordy v. Plimus, Inc et al

Filing 123

ORDER re 121 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal (Unopposed) filed by Kimberly Yordy. Signed by Judge Thelton E. Henderson on 12/03/13. (tehlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

KIMBERLY YORDY,

No. C12-0229 TEH

6

Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

v.
PLIMUS, INC.,
Defendant.

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

13

In connection with her renewed motion for class certification, Plaintiff Kimberly

14

Yordy (“Yordy”) filed an unopposed administrative motion to file documents under seal

15

pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5. In support of her motion, Yordy stated that

16

the documents submitted had been designated as “Confidential” by Defendant Plimus, Inc.

17

(“Plimus”) pursuant to the parties’ stipulated protective order. Plimus failed to comply

18

with Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), which required it to file a declaration “establishing that

19

all of the designated material is sealable.”

20

Upon careful review, the Court has concerns about whether the documents

21

designated as “Confidential” by Plimus should be sealed in their entirety. Civil Local Rule

22

79-5(b) defines sealable material as that which is “privileged, protectable as a trade secret

23

or otherwise entitled to protection under the law.” Likewise, Federal Rule of Civil

24

Procedure 26(c) protects any “trade secret or other confidential research, development, or

25

commercial information.” Copies of e-mails that were sent to or received by Plimus from

26

outside companies do not appear to qualify as protectable trade secrets or otherwise

27

protectable confidential information. Similarly, the Court is doubtful that consumer

28

complaints, deposition transcripts that include testimony merely identifying names and
1

1

titles of Plimus employees, and Plimus’s objections to Yordy’s interrogatories should be

2

sealed in their entirety, if at all.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer

4

regarding which parts, if any, of Exhibits 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-34, 38-47, and 49 to the

5

Declaration of Benjamin H. Richman, and any references thereto, warrant sealing. The

6

parties shall file a renewed joint administrative motion to file documents under seal on or

7

before December 13, 2013. The motion shall be supported by declarations by Plimus that

8

establish the sealability of any material sought to be filed under seal. The parties are

9

reminded that any request to file material under seal “must be narrowly tailored to seek

10

sealing only of sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).

12
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated: 12/03/13

__ _____________________ _______
THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2