Doublevision Entertainment, LLC v. Navigators Specialty Insurance Company et al
Filing
26
ORDER APPROVING 24 STIPULATED PROTECTIVEORDER SUBJECT TOSTATED CONDITIONS.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/2/2014).
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
DOUBLEVISION ENTERTAINMENT, LLC,
a Tennessee limited liability company, as
assignee of COMMERCIAL ESCROW
SERVICES, INC., a California corporation,
and ANNETTE HARDSTONE, an individual,
13
14
15
16
17
18
Plaintiffs,
No. C 14-02848 WHA
ORDER APPROVING
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER SUBJECT TO
STATED CONDITIONS
v.
NAVIGATORS SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a New York corporation, THE
NAVIGATORS GROUP, INC., a New York
corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive,
Defendants.
/
19
20
The stipulated protective order submitted by the parties is hereby APPROVED, subject to
21
the following conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s strict caution against
22
sealing orders (as set out below):
23
1.
The parties must make a good-faith determination that any
24
information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c)
25
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as
26
“confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there
27
is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an order un-designating
28
all or most materials on a wholesale basis.
1
2.
In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the
2
Court must be lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil
3
Local Rule 79-5. Please limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly
4
tailored portions of materials for which good cause to seal exists. Please include
5
all other portions of your materials in the public file and clearly indicate therein
6
where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires an
7
individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer
8
allowed by Civil Local Rule 79-5.
9
3.
Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and
unredacted — so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
or declaration. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which
12
portions are confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be
13
handled like all other chambers copies of materials without special restriction, and
14
will typically be recycled, not shredded.
15
4.
In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006),
16
the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons”
17
are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling
18
reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial.
19
Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be
20
unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed
21
on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant
22
first shows a “compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good
23
cause.” This will be true regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are
24
warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material should be
25
completely open to public view. Only social security numbers, names of
26
juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling
27
nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom
28
would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment
2
1
proceedings, which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also
2
part of the trial and must likewise be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please
3
comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable to be stricken in
4
their entirety.
5
6
7
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
8
undesignate information or documents that have been designated as confidential.
9
The party seeking to designate material as confidential has the burden of
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
establishing that the material is entitled to protection.
7.
The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the
12
proposed and stipulated protective order for only NINETY DAYS after final
13
termination of the action.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
18
Dated: September 2, 2014.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?