Martinez v. Extra Space Storage Inc et al

Filing 130

ORDER RE OBJECTION TO FILING UNDER SEAL 126 Opposition/Response to Motion filed by Extra Space Management, Inc, Extra Space Storage Inc. Signed by Judge William Alsup on December 19, 2013. (whalc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

TIFFANY CURTIS, on behalf of herself and
all persons similarly situated,
No. C 13-00319 WHA
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

v.

Defendants.
/

17
18

ORDER RE OBJECTION
TO FILING UNDER SEAL

EXTRA SPACE STORAGE, INC., a
Maryland corporation, EXTRA SPACE
MANAGEMENT, INC., a Utah corporation,
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

On August 15, 2013, the undersigned judge held that defendants must turn over to

19

plaintiff the names and contact information of 1,000 potential class members (Dkt. No. 57). A

20

subsequent order denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification (Dkt. No. 109).

21

On December 2, defendants filed a letter brief alleging that plaintiff’s counsel, Jeffery

22

Wilens, had used the contact information obtained from defendants to solicit new clients

23

(Dkt. No. 114). On December 3, the undersigned judge ordered the parties to attend a meet-and-

24

confer concerning the foregoing dispute.

25

On December 6, both parties stipulated that plaintiff would return to defendants all

26

documents containing the information produced pursuant to the August 15 order. Plaintiff’s

27

counsel was to cease and desist from using the contact information obtained from defendants.

28

The stipulation did not apply to the thirty individuals on whose behalf plaintiff and her counsel
had already filed a motion to intervene. Defendants reserved the right to challenge plaintiff

1

counsel’s use of the contact information in connection with the thirty putative interveners. The

2

stipulation also called for in camera review of plaintiff counsel’s correspondence with the

3

putative interveners, however, the undersigned judge instead ordered plaintiff’s counsel to

4

tentatively file them under seal (Dkt. No. 118). In response, plaintiff’s counsel filed these

5

exemplars under seal and they were reviewed by the undersigned judge (Dkt. No. 121).

6

Defendants now argue that they should be entitled to review the unredacted

Without deciding whether there is any privilege to these documents, defendants’ request is

9

Denied. Defendants already agreed to in camera review of the documents. In addition, the

10

undersigned judge has reviewed the documents and found there to be no untoward conduct.

11
For the Northern District of California

communications between plaintiff’s counsel and the prospective interveners (Dkt. No. 126).

8

United States District Court

7

Accordingly, the documents filed by plaintiff’s counsel will remain under seal.

12
13
14

Dated: December 19, 2013

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2