Ellsworth v. U.S. Bank, N.A.

Filing 161

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINITFFS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL: Re 149 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Stephen Ellsworth. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 11/22/2013. (ls, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

STEPHEN ELLSWORTH, as an individual
and as a Representative of the classes and on
behalf of the general public,

13

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15

U.S. BANK, N.A., and AMERICAN
SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY,

16

No. C 12-02506 LB
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
PLAINITFF’S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

[ECF No. 149]

17
18

On November 14, 2013, Plaintiff Stephen Ellsworth filed an administrative motion to file under

19

seal a number of exhibits he cites in support of his motion for class certification. See Admin. Mot.,

20

ECF No. 149.1 In an accompanying declaration, Ellsworth explains that he moves to portions of his

21

reply brief and an accompanying expert report because Defendants designated the information as

22

“confidential” under the parties’ protective order. See id. U.S. Bank and ASIC filed declarations

23

supporting Ellsworth’s administrative motion on November 18, 2013. See Tahdooahnippah Decl.,

24

ECF No. 150 (U.S. Bank); Kortz Decl., ECF No. 153 (ASIC). U.S. Bank and ASIC contend that the

25

court should seal the excerpts at issue because they provide details of contracts between ASIC and

26
27
1

28

Citations are to the Electronic Case File (“ECF”) with pin cites to the electronicallygenerated page numbers at the top of the document.

C 12-02506 LB (ORDER)

1

U.S. Bank. The court reviewed the parties’ submissions and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN

2

PART Ellsworth’s administrative motion to file under seal, as indicated in the following table.

3

Document

Pin Cite

Ruling

4

Plaintiff’s Reply
Memorandum

15:25-26

Grant

Birny Birnbaum Decl.
Ex. 1

4:9-12

Grant

7

4:13-14 (up to the word “does”)

Grant

8

4:14-15 (ending at the period)

Deny - This statement does not
reveal specific contract terms.

9

4:15-16 (from the beginning of the
sentence)

Grant

4:21-25

Grant

4: n.3 and n.4

Grant

5:9-12, n.6

Deny - Revealing these details
will not cause competitive
harm.

10:12, 14

Grant

15

17:16-19

Grant

16

17:21-22

Grant

17

30:15-17

Grant

18

30:18-20 (ending with the period)

Deny - Revealing these details
will not cause competitive
harm.

20

30:20-21 (from the beginning of the
sentence)

Grant

21

30:26-29, n.35, n.36

Grant

22

Pages 31-32

Deny - Revealing these details
will not cause competitive
harm.

38:21, 22-23

Grant

5
6

10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14

19

23
24
25
26
27
28

C 12-02506 LB (ORDER)

2

1
2

CONCLUSION
As specified above, the court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Ellsworth’s

3
4

adminstrative motion to file under seal. The parties shall respond as provided in Civil Local Rule

5

79.

6

This disposes of ECF No. 149.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

Dated: November 22, 2013

_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

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

C 12-02506 LB (ORDER)

3