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)

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