Wit et al v. UnitedHealthcare Insurance Company et al

Filing 101

ORDER FOR DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL, to be filed by December 4, 2015. Signed by Judge Joseph C. Spero on November 30, 2015. (jcslc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DAVID WIT, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
v.
9
10

UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
Defendant.

Case No. 14-cv-02346-JCS
Related Case No. 14-cv-05337 JCS
ORDER FOR DECLARATION IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 97

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

GARY ALEXANDER, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

13
14
15
16

v.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH,
Defendant.

17
18
19

Plaintiffs have filed an Administrative Motion to Seal Portions of the Motion to Compel

20

and Exhibits to the Declaration of Caroline E. Reynolds in Support Thereof (“Motion to Seal”),

21

asking the Court for leave to file under seal certain exhibits that Defendants have designated

22

Confidential or Highly Confidential under the parties’ stipulated protective order, as well as

23

portions of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel that quote from these documents. Case No. 14-cv-2346

24

JCS, Docket No. 97; Case No. 14-cv-5337 JCS, Docket No. 62. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-

25

5(e), a party seeking to file materials under seal on the basis of another party’s designation of that

26

material as confidential must give notice to the designating party, who is required to file within

27

four days a declaration establishing that all of the designated material is sealable. Rule 79-

28

5(d)(1)(A) provides that “[r]eference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to

1

des
signate certa documents as confide
ain
ential is not s
sufficient to establish th a docume or
hat
ent,

2

por
rtions thereo are sealab
of,
ble.” Instead of followin the proced
d
ng
dure set forth in Rule 79 Plaintiffs
h
9-5,
s

3

hav provided a stipulation subject to the approval of the Cour that Plain
ve
n,
l
rt,
ntiffs may fil the
le

4

des
signated mat
terials under seal. The parties’ stipu
r
p
ulation is insu
ufficient to e
establish tha the
at

5

ma
aterials sough to be seale are sealab and does not comply with Rule 7
ht
ed
ble
s
y
79-5.

6

Docum
ments attached to nondisp
positive moti
ions “are oft unrelated or only tan
ten
d,
ngentially

7

rela
ated, to the underlying cause of actio and ther
u
c
on,”
refore, partie moving to seal must m the
es
o
meet

8

low “good ca
wer
ause” standa of Rule 26(c) of the F
ard
2
Federal Rule of Civil Pr
es
rocedure. K
Kamakana v.

9

Cit & Cty. of Honolulu, 44 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quo
ty
H
47
h
otations and citations
om
mitted). The “good cause standard requires a “p
e”
r
particularized showing” t “specifi prejudice
d
that
ic

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

or harm will re
h
esult” if the information is disclosed. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. G Motors
i
.
Gen.

12

Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210
d
0–11 (9th Ci 2002) (int
ir.
nternal quota
ation marks o
omitted); see Fed. R.
e

13

Civ P. 26(c). “Broad alleg
v.
“
gations of ha
arm, unsubst
tantiated by specific exam
mples of art
ticulated

14

rea
asoning” are not sufficien Beckman Indus., Inc v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th
nt.
n
c.
.
6

15

Cir
r.1992). Fu
urther, while “[a] protecti order sea
ive
aling the doc
cuments duri discover may
ing
ry

16

ref
flect the cour previous determinati that good cause exist to keep th documents sealed, . . .
rt’s
s
ion
d
ts
he
s

17

a blanket prote
b
ective order that allows th parties to designate c
t
he
o
confidential d
documents d
does not

18

pro
ovide sufficient judicial scrutiny to determine wh
s
d
hether each p
particular do
ocument sho
ould remain

19

sea
aled.” Thera
anos, Inc. v. Fuisz Pharm LLC, No. 5:11-CV-05236-PSG, 2
ma
.
2013 WL 57
770317, at

20

*1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2013
O
3).

21

Accord
dingly, Defen
ndants are or
rdered to file no later th Friday, D
e,
han
December 4, 2015, a

22

dec
claration sho
owing that th is good cause to sea the specific materials i
here
al
identified by Plaintiffs in
y
n

23

the Motion to Seal. Failu to file a declaration in complianc with Civil Local Rule 79-5 will
eir
o
ure
d
n
ce
l

24

res in denial of Plaintiffs Motion to Seal.
sult
l
s’
o

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Novem
mber 30, 2015
___
__________
___________
__________
________
JO
OSEPH C. SP
PERO
Ch Magistra Judge
hief
ate
2