Yost et al v. Black & Decker (US), Inc. et al

Filing 58

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar; denying 55 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ARTHUR R. YOST, et al.,

Case No. 13-cv-05203-JST

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

v.
9
10

ROHM GMBH, et al.,

Re: ECF No. 55

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Plaintiffs Arthur R. Yost, Erika Yost, and Energy Concepts, Inc. move to file under seal

12
13

Exhibits 3-9 and 12-24 in support of their opposition to Defendants’ motion for partial summary

14

judgment. ECF No. 55. No declaration in support of sealing has been filed. The Court will deny

15

the motion.

16

I.

17

LEGAL STANDARD
A party seeking to seal a document filed with the court must (1) comply with Civil Local

18

Rule 79-5; and (2) rebut the “a strong presumption in favor of access” that applies to all

19

documents other than grand jury transcripts or pre-indictment warrant materials. Kamakana v.

20

City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotations

21

omitted).

22

Any request for sealing must establish “that the document, or portions thereof, are

23

privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection under the law . . . . ”

24

Civil L.R. 79-5(b). “Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate

25

certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof,

26

are sealable.” Civil L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A). When one party files the motion to seal, but the basis for

27

the sealing request is another party’s designation of the documents as confidential, the designating

28

party has four days from the date the motion is filed to file a declaration establishing that the

1
2

documents should be sealed. Civil L.R. 79-5(e)(1).
Plaintiffs, as the filing party, have identified Black & Decker, Inc. as the party that has

3

designated the documents sought to be sealed as confidential. ECF No. 55 at 1. Accordingly, the

4

designating party was required to file a declaration in support of the motion to seal within four

5

days of November 10, 2015. Without the declaration in support of the motion to seal, the Court

6

cannot ascertain whether the documents “are privileged, protectable as a trade secret or otherwise

7

entitled to protection under the law.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b). Plaintiffs’ assertion that the documents

8

are the subject of a protective order is not sufficient to establish that the documents should be

9

sealed. Civil L.R. 79-5(d).
Accordingly, the Court finds that the motion to seal fails to comply with Civil Local Rule

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

79-5. The Court also finds that the parties have failed to rebut the strong presumption in favor of

12

public access to court documents. The Court hereby denies the motion to file under seal.

13

The document will not be considered by the Court unless Plaintiffs file the document in the

14

public record within seven days from the date of this Order. Civil L.R. 79-5(f)(2). The hearing

15

date and briefing schedule on the underlying motion shall remain as originally set.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2015

18
19
20

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2