United States of America v. 1.41 Acres of Land et al

Filing 74

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS AND VACATING HEARING. re 71 Protective Order.. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 12, 2015. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/12/2015)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

Plaintiff,

No. C 14-01781 WHA

v.
1.41 ACRES OF LAND, more or less, situated
in the City of Alameda, Alameda County, State
of California, and THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its
Department of Parks and Recreation, and the
EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT,

ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED
PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO
STATED CONDITIONS AND
VACATING HEARING

Defendants.
/

15
16

The parties appeared for a discovery hearing on February 25. Now, the parties represent

17

that they have fully resolved their discovery disputes and that entry of the stipulated protective

18

order would render the April 7 hearing moot (Dkt. Nos. 71, 73).

19

The stipulated protective order submitted by the parties is hereby APPROVED, subject to

20

the following conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s strict caution against sealing

21

orders (as set out below):

22

1.

The parties must make a good-faith determination that any

23

information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c)

24

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as

25

“confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there

26

is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an order un-designating

27

all or most materials on a wholesale basis.

28

2.

In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the

Court must be lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil

1

Local Rule 79-5. Please limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly

2

tailored portions of materials for which good cause to seal exists. Please include

3

all other portions of your materials in the public file and clearly indicate therein

4

where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires an

5

individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer

6

allowed by Civil Local Rule 79-5.

7

3.

Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and

8

unredacted — so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief

9

or declaration. Chambers copies more than two-inches thick should have exhibit
tabs. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which portions are

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be handled like all

12

other chambers copies of materials without special restriction, and will typically

13

be recycled, not shredded.

14

4.

In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006),

15

the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons”

16

are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling

17

reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial.

18

Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be

19

unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed

20

on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant

21

first shows a “compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good

22

cause.” This will be true regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are

23

warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material should be

24

completely open to public view. Only social security numbers, names of

25

juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling

26

nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom

27

would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment

28

proceedings, which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also
2

1

part of the trial and must likewise be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please

2

comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable to be stricken in

3

their entirety.

4
5
6

5.

Any confidential materials used openly in court hearings or trial

will not be treated in any special manner absent a further order.
6.

This order does not preclude any party from moving to

7

undesignate information or documents that have been designated as confidential.

8

The party seeking to designate material as confidential has the burden of

9

establishing that the material is entitled to protection.
7.

The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

proposed and stipulated protective order for only NINETY DAYS after final

12

termination of the action.

13
14

8.

The April 7 hearing is hereby VACATED. This order resolves

docket numbers 52, 54, and 71.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: March 12, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3