Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Law School Admission Council Inc

Filing 120

ORDER re [111-2] Proposed Order, filed by Department of Fair Employment and Housing. Signed by Judge Kandis A. Westmore on March 15, 2013. (kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/15/2013)

1
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3
4
5
6

DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT
AND HOUSING,

7

Plaintiff,

8

v.

9
10

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES'
PROPOSED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER RESPECTING CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION

LAW SCHOOL ADMISSION COUNSEL,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.: 12-cv-1830 (EMC) KAW

12
13

The Court has reviewed the parties' stipulated protective order. See Dkt # 111-2. The

14

Court will not enter the proposed protective order as written, because portions of the proposed

15

order relating to filing documents under seal appear to be inconsistent with the local rules. For

16

example, the proposed order implies that where neither party objects to a document being filed

17
18
19
20

under seal, the document may be filed under seal. Id. at 13. But under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)
("Filing a Document Designated Confidential by Another Party"), no document shall be filed
under seal unless the party who has designated it confidential has demonstrated by affidavit that it
is indeed sealable. The Court then decides whether the documents should, in fact, be sealed.
The failure of the other side to challenge the filing of the documents under seal

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

(presumably after the fact) does not relieve the party seeking to file under seal from its burden of
showing that the information is "privileged or protectable as a trade secret of otherwise entitled to
protection under the law." Id. Nor does the absence of an opposition avoid the Court's
determination on the sealability question. The proposed stipulation effectively circumvents the
Court's review process and is, therefore, improper.
///

The parties may file a revised stipulated protective order that is consistent with the local

1
2
3

rules.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: March 15, 2013

___________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2