Raymat Materials, Inc. v. A&C Catalysts, Inc.

Filing 43

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 42 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Stipulated Protective Order filed by Protameen Chemicals, Inc., Raymat Materials, Inc. SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 2, 2013. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RAYMAT MATERIALS, INC., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 No. C 13-00567 WHA Plaintiff, v. ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (DKT. NO. 42) SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS A&C CATALYSTS, INC., 14 Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 PROTAMEEN CHEMICAL, INC., 17 Third-Party Defendant. 18 / 19 The stipulated protective order submitted by the parties (Dkt. No. 42) is hereby 20 APPROVED, subject to the following conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s 21 strict caution against sealing orders (as set out below): 22 1. The parties must make a good-faith determination that any 23 information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c) 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as 25 “confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there 26 is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an order un-designating 27 all or most materials on a wholesale basis. 28 2. In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the Court must be lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil 1 Local Rule 79-5. Please limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly 2 tailored portions of materials for which good cause to seal exists. Please 3 includeall other portions of your materials in the public file and clearly indicate 4 therein where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires an 5 individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer 6 allowed by Civil Local Rule 79-5. 7 3. Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and 8 unredacted — so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief 9 or declaration. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which portions are confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 handled like all other chambers copies of materials without special restriction, and 12 will typically be recycled, not shredded. 13 4. In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), 14 the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons” 15 are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling 16 reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial. 17 Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be 18 unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed 19 on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant 20 first shows a “compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good 21 cause.” This will be true regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are 22 warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material should be 23 completely open to public view. Only social security numbers, names of 24 juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling 25 nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom 26 would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment 27 proceedings, which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also 28 part of the trial and must likewise be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please 2 1 comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable to be stricken in 2 their entirety. 3 4 5 5. Any confidential materials used openly in court hearings or trial will not be treated in any special manner absent a further order. 6. This order does not preclude any party from moving to 6 undesignate information or documents that have been designated as confidential. 7 The party seeking to designate material as confidential has the burden of 8 establishing that the material is entitled to protection. 9 7. The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the proposed and stipulated protective order for only NINETY DAYS after final 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 termination of the action. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 16 Dated: December 2, 2013. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?