Dugan et al v. Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC

Filing 356

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL (DKT. NO. 347) by Hon. William Alsup granting in part and denying in part 347 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2013)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
8

JOHN DUGAN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 12-02549 WHA

v.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
SEAL (DKT. NO. 347)

LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC.,
Defendant.
/

13
14

Defendant has filed an administrative motion to seal. In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447

15

F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed,

16

“compelling reasons” are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions. Compelling

17

reasons have not been shown to seal the two lines in defendant’s motion for summary judgment

18

and thus the request is DENIED. The request to seal four excerpts of defendant’s exhibits

19

contained in the Khula declaration is GRANTED. The request to seal Exhibit 20 which contains

20

internal practices and procedures for loan products is GRANTED. The request to seal Exhibit 39

21

which contains a business proposal and repricing information is GRANTED. The request to seal

22

pages 3 and 4 of Exhibit 40 which contain pricing and funding data is GRANTED. The request to

23

seal Exhibit 42 which contains formulas and loan data is GRANTED. Compelling reasons have

24

not been shown to seal pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 43 and thus the request is DENIED.

25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: December 19, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE