Lawrence v. City and County of San Francisco et al

Filing 114

ORDER by Judge Maria-Elena James denying 109 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (mejlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 EMIL LAWRENCE, Case No. 14-cv-00820-MEJ Plaintiff, 8 ORDER RE: ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL v. 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 109 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff Emil Lawrence moves to file under seal Exhibits 1-6 to his Opposition to 14 Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. Mot. to Seal, Dkt. No. 109; see Opp’n, Dkt. No. 15 110. In support of his Motion to Seal, Plaintiff submits the Declaration of David B. Anderson 16 stating Defendants designated these exhibits as confidential pursuant to the parties’ protective 17 order. Anderson Decl. ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 109-1; see Protective Order, Dkt. No. 62. Defendants did not 18 respond to the Motion. Having considered the parties positions and the relevant legal authority, 19 the Court issues the following order. 20 There is a “strong presumption in favor of access” by the public to judicial records and 21 documents accompanying dispositive motions. Kamakana v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 22 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 23 (9th Cir. 2003)). To overcome this presumption, a “party must articulate compelling reasons 24 supported by specific fact[s].” Id. at 1178 (internal quotation and citation omitted); see also 25 Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding sealing 26 appropriate where companies “filed declarations from employees” that “explained the measures 27 the two companies take to keep their product-specific financial information confidential” and “the 28 harm they would suffer if their product-specific financial information were made public”). 1 Indeed, such showing is required even where “the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were 2 previously filed under seal or protective order.” Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. 3 Under the Local Rules of this District, where a party seeks to file under seal any material 4 designated as confidential by another party, the submitting party must file a motion for a sealing 5 order. See Civil L.R. 79-5(d)-(e). “Within 4 days of the filing of the Administrative Motion to 6 File Under Seal, the Designating Party must file a declaration . . . establishing that all of the 7 designated information is sealable.” Id. at 79-5(e)(1). “If the Designating Party does not file a 8 9 10 responsive declaration as required by subsection 79-5(e)(1) and the Administrative Motion to File Under Seal is denied, the Submitting Party may file the document in the public record no earlier than 4 days, and no later than 10 days, after the motion is denied.” Id. at 79-5(e)(2). To date, Defendants have not filed a responsive declaration to Plaintiff’s Motion. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion to File Under Seal and DIRECTS Plaintiff to file Exhibits 1-6 in the public record, no earlier than April 6, 2017 and no later than April 14, 13 2017. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: March 31, 2017 17 18 19 ______________________________________ MARIA-ELENA JAMES United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?