Colucci et al v. ZonePerfect Nutrition Company

Filing 92

ORDER for supplemental briefing re 87 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT ZONEPERFECTS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON CLASS CERTIFICATION ISSUES filed by Kimberly S. Sethavanish, 85 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by ZonePerfect Nutrition Company. Signed by Judge Samuel Conti on 1/27/2014. (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

10
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9

11
12
13
14
15
16

KIMBERLY S. SETHAVANISH, on behalf ) Case No. 12-2907-SC
of themselves and all others
)
) ORDER RE: MOTIONS TO SEAL
similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
)
ZONEPERFECT NUTRITION COMPANY,
)
Defendant.
)
)

17
18

Now pending before the Court is Defendant's administrative

19

motion to file under seal portions of its sur-reply in opposition

20

to Plaintiff's motion for class certification("the sur-reply), as

21

well as Exhibits 18 and 19 to the Declaration of Janakan

22

Thiagarajah in support of the sur-reply.

23

before the Court is Plaintiff's administrative motion to file under

24

seal portions of its opposition to Defendant's administrative

25

motion for an evidentiary hearing on class certification and the

26

accompanying declaration of Michael D. Braun.

27
28

ECF No. 85.

Also pending

ECF No. 87.

The motions are short and provide no explanation as to why the
information at issue is protectable.

Moreover, it is unclear how

1

the parties could plausibly contend that some of the relevant

2

information (including references to FDA regulations and the

3

location of Defendant's manufacturing facilities) should be sealed.

4

The parties appear to be working under the assumption that the

5

Court will rubberstamp any motion to seal they file.

6

declines to do so going forward.

7

significant administrative burden and undermines the public's right

8

to access documents filed in federal court.

9

The Court

Sealing of documents entails a

The Court advises the parties that calling something a trade

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10

secret does not make it so.

11

that information is not sealable merely because it is the subject

12

of a stipulated protective order.

13

stipulation, or a blanket protective order that allows a party to

14

designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to allow the

15

filing of documents under seal."); ECF No. 49 ("Stip. Protective

16

Order") § 12.3 ("a sealing order will issue only upon a request

17

establishing that the Protected Material at issue is privileged,

18

protectable as a trade secret, or otherwise entitled to protection

19

under the law").

20

The Court also reminds the parties

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(a) ("A

Within five days of the signature date of this Order, one or

21

both parties may file a supplemental brief regarding the pending

22

motions to seal.

23

subject to the pending motions to seal and explain why that

24

information is protectable.

25

brief by the deadline set forth above, the pending motions shall be

26

denied.

27

moving paper or response is filed that meets these requirements.

28

With respect to trade secrets, the Court encourages Defendant to

The brief shall describe the information that is

If neither party files a supplemental

Going forward, no motion to seal will be granted unless a

2

1

file declarations from an officer, director, or employee explaining

2

why the relevant information is a trade secret and how that

3

information is generally maintained.

4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: January 27, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3