Telecom Asset Management, LLC v. Cellco Partnership et al
Filing
26
ORDER RE SEALING MOTION (DKT. NO. 21) re 21 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 30, 2014. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/30/2014)
1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
7
TELECOM ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC,
Plaintiff,
8
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
No. C 14-05021 WHA
v.
CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a VERIZON
WIRELESS, VERIZON SOURCING LLC,
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS INC., and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
ORDER RE SEALING MOTION
(DKT. NO. 21)
Defendants.
/
13
14
Plaintiff filed an administrative motion for leave to file under seal portions of Exhibits C,
15
E, and J. Only two supporting documents were filed: (1) a vague three-paragraph declaration by
16
Attorney Michelle Carter and (2) a stipulation, signed by counsel, dated December 19, 2014,
17
stating that the “proposed fee structures and handling of fees” and “edits” were “private,
18
proprietary and confidential.” No other declaration was filed. See Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1).
19
For sealing motions, our analysis begins with a “strong presumption” in favor of access
20
to court records. Foltz v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 331 F.3d 1122,
21
1135 (9th Cir. 2003). For non-dispositive motions, the “good cause” standard applies.
22
Nevertheless, there must be a “particularized showing” that specific harm or prejudice will result
23
if the information is disclosed. Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172,
24
1179–80 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, the parties’ showing is unsatisfactory. No sworn declaration
25
cogently stating a particularized showing of specific harm or prejudice that would result if the
26
information is disclosed was timely filed. Furthermore, the sealing motion was overbroad.
27
Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.
28
Nevertheless, the following limited relief will be allowed. By JANUARY 2, 2015, plaintiff
shall file the declaration of Steven Strong, with exhibit pages (and tabs), laying bare all except
1
for the following limited redactions which may be sealed: (1) the percentages in the table on
2
page 2 of Exhibit C and on page 3 of Exhibit E; (2) the dollar amounts and percentages
3
referenced in the table on page 3 of Exhibit C and on page 5 of Exhibit E; (3) the percentage
4
referenced in paragraph four on page 4 of Exhibit C and in paragraph one on page 6 of Exhibit E;
5
(4) the formulas and dollar amounts referenced in the two tables on page 5 of Exhibit C and on
6
pages 6 and 7 of Exhibit E; and (5) the wire transfer number referenced in Exhibit J. Everything
7
else, including the tracked changes, must be filed publicly.
they may be denied in their entirety. Please remember that the parties must make a good-faith
10
determination that any information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under
11
For the Northern District of California
The parties are hereby warned that in the future, if sealing motions are non-compliant,
9
United States District Court
8
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as “confidential”
12
must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there is good cause. A pattern of
13
over-designation may lead to an order un-designating all or most materials on a wholesale basis
14
and/or sanctions. Moreover, most summary judgment motions, motions in limine, trial briefs,
15
and supporting materials should be completely open to public view. Only social security
16
numbers, names of juveniles, home addresses, and trade secrets of a compelling nature (like the
17
recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify for a sealing motion. Please make sure all
18
exhibits have exhibit pages and tabs so that it can be ascertained where one exhibit ends and the
19
next one begins.
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23
Dated: December 30, 2014.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?