Braden Partners, LP et al v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company

Filing 27

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO TERMINATE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL re 24 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re: Motion to Dismiss filed by Twin City Fire Insurance Company. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 9, 2014. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/9/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

BRADEN PARTNERS, LP, et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-01689-JST

Plaintiffs,
9
v.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO
TERMINATE ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Re: ECF No. 24

13
14

The Court is in receipt of Defendant Twin City Fire Insurance Company’s Administrative

15

Motion To File Under Seal. ECF No. 24. The Motion fails to comply with this Court’s Standing

16

Order Governing Administrative Motions to File Under Seal (cand.uscourts.gov/jstorders)

17

(“Standing Order”) and with Civil Local Rule 79-5.

18

Specifically, Twin City fails to: (1) include a statement that it has reviewed and complied

19

with both the Standing Order and Local Rule 79-5, see Standing Order at 1; (2) include a

20

statement identifying the entity that has designated each document to be sealed as confidential,

21

Local Rule 79-5(e); (3) include a declaration that establishes why the documents should be filed

22

under seal. Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) (the filing party included a declaration, but, because the

23

declaration is redacted, it does not establish why the documents should be filed under seal); (4)

24

include a proposed order narrowly tailored to seal only the sealable material and that lists in table

25

format each document or portion thereof the party wishes to seal, Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(B); (5)

26

include a redacted version of the document sought to be filed under seal, on which is prominently

27

displayed: “REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT(S) SOUGHT TO BE SEALED,” Local

28

Rule 79-5(d)(1)(C); and (6) include an un-redacted version of the document sought to be filed

1

under seal, on which is prominently displayed: “UNREDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT(S)

2

SOUGHT TO BE SEALED,” Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(D).

3

The Court directs the Clerk of Court to terminate Twin City’s motion. If Twin City wishes

4

to re-file its motion, it is directed to do so only after consulting both this Court’s Standing Order

5

and the Local Rule. Twin City should also note that this Order does not detail every requirement

6

contained in the Standing Order and the Local Rule.

7

Twin City is also reminded that if the motion itself is filed in redacted form, the Court
cannot resolve the motion because the Court will have insufficient information on which to base

9

its order. The motion itself may be brief in length, in unredacted form, and may refer to other

10

sealed documents that specifically identify the information the party wishes to have sealed and

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

explain the reasons for that request. The filing party is invited to review similar motions filed by

12

parties in other cases for guidance.

13

Finally, when submitting to ECF documents that the filing party wishes to be sealed, the

14

party can choose—by checking a box—to keep these documents under seal pending resolution of

15

the motion.

16

This order does not constitute a denial for purposes of Local Rule 79-5(f). If, however, the

17

filing party does not file a motion that complies with all of the requirements of the Local Rule and

18

the Court’s Standing Order, the documents the filing party wishes to seal will be filed publicly.

19
20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 9, 2014
______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2