Hunt v. Continental Casualty Company

Filing 138

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING 134 STIPULATION REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SEAL. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SUSAN HUNT,

Case No. 13-cv-05966-HSG

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION
REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
TO SEAL

v.
9
10

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

Re: Dkt. No. 134

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

At the hearing on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the Court directed the

14

parties to meet and confer regarding Plaintiff’s administrative motion to file under seal and

15

comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Local Rule 79-5 sets forth specific requirements for filing

16

documents under seal in civil cases. The parties’ stipulation does not meet these requirements.

17

Under the Local Rule, the party asserting a claim of confidentiality over a document must file a

18

declaration that

19
20
21
22
23
24

establish[es] that the document sought to be filed under seal, or
portions thereof, are sealable. Reference to a stipulation or
protective order . . . is not sufficient . . . . The procedures detailed in
Civil L.R. 79-5(e) apply to requests to seal in which the sole basis
for sealing is that the document(s) at issue were previously
designated as confidential or subject to a protective order.
Civ. L.R. 79-5(d)(1)(A).
The Court further cautions the parties that the submitted declarations must “articulate

25

compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings that outweigh the general history of

26

access and the public policies favoring disclosure, such as the public interest in understanding the

27

judicial process” and “significant public events.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447

28

F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted).

1

“In general, ‘compelling reasons’ sufficient to outweigh the public’s interest in disclosure and

2

justify sealing court records exist when such ‘court files might have become a vehicle for

3

improper purposes,’ such as the use of records to gratify private spite, promote public scandal,

4

circulate libelous statements, or release trade secrets.” Id. at 1179 (citing Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598).

5

“The mere fact that the production of records may lead to a litigant’s embarrassment,

6

incrimination, or exposure to further litigation will not, without more, compel the court to seal its

7

records.” Id. Finally, the requested sealing must be “narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of

8

sealable material.” Civil L.R. 79-5(b).
Although in her motion to seal Plaintiff argues in the abstract why various categories of

10

documents are sealable, Plaintiff does not support that legal argument with facts specific to the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

documents sought to be sealed. Furthermore, it does not appear that the request to seal is narrowly

12

tailored, as required by the local rules.

13

The parties are directed to comply with the above-described requirements by Friday,

14

September 4, 2015, so that the Court can properly consider Plaintiff’s motion to seal. In addition,

15

due to the large number of documents sought to be sealed, it would be helpful to the Court for the

16

parties to submit a summary chart listing the document sought to be sealed, the particular portions

17

of the document that contain sealable material, and the legal and factual bases for sealing that

18

material. If the parties fail to comply with this Order, the Court will not consider the documents

19

sought to be sealed when ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment unless unredacted

20

versions of those documents are promptly filed in the public record.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 31, 2015
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
2