IL Fornaio (America) Corp. et al v. Lazzari Fuel Company, LLC et al

Filing 60

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS by Hon. William Alsup granting (59) Stipulation in case 3:13-cv-05197-WHA.Associated Cases: 3:13-cv-05197-WHA, 3:13-cv-05331-WHA(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2014)

Download PDF
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 IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION, OLIVETO PARTNERS, LTD., and THE FAMOUS ENTERPRISE FISH COMPANY OF SANTA MONICA, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, No. C 13-05197 WHA C 13-05331 WHA 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. 14 16 LAZZARI FUEL COMPANY, LLC, CALIFORNIA CHARCOAL AND FIREWOOD, INC., and CHEF’S CHOICE MESQUITE CHARCOAL, 17 Defendants. 15 ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS / 18 19 DARBAR CUISINE, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, 20 21 22 23 Plaintiff, v. CHEF’S CHOICE MESQUITE CHARCOAL, LAZZARI FUEL COMPANY LLC, CALIFORNIA CHARCOAL AND FIREWOOD, INC., and WILLIAM W. LORD, 24 Defendants. 25 / 26 27 28 The stipulated protective order (Dkt. No. 59) submitted by the parties is hereby APPROVED, subject to the following conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s strict caution against sealing orders (as set out below): 1 1. The parties must make a good-faith determination that any 2 information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c) 3 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as 4 “confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there 5 is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an order un-designating 6 all or most materials on a wholesale basis. 7 2. In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the 8 Court must be lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil 9 Local Rule 79-5. Please limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly tailored portions of materials for which good cause to seal exists. Please include 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 all other portions of your materials in the public file and clearly indicate therein 12 where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires an 13 individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer 14 allowed by Civil Local Rule 79-5. 15 3. Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and 16 unredacted — so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief 17 or declaration. Chambers copies more than two-inches thick should include 18 exhibit tabs. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which portions 19 are confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be handled like 20 all other chambers copies of materials without special restriction, and will 21 typically be recycled, not shredded. 22 4. In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006), 23 the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons” 24 are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling 25 reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial. 26 Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be 27 unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed 28 on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant 2 1 first shows a “compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good 2 cause.” This will be true regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are 3 warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material should be 4 completely open to public view. Only social security numbers, names of 5 juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling 6 nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom 7 would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment 8 proceedings, which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also 9 part of the trial and must likewise be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable to be stricken in 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 their entirety. 12 13 14 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 15 undesignate information or documents that have been designated as confidential. 16 The party seeking to designate material as confidential has the burden of 17 establishing that the material is entitled to protection. 18 7. The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the 19 proposed and stipulated protective order for only NINETY DAYS after final 20 termination of the action. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 25 Dated: March 6, 2014. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?