Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Science and Technology Co., Ltd. v. Rearden LLC et al

Filing 165

ORDER re 160 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. Response due by 6/7/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 6/3/2016. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/3/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VIRTUE GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED,

Case No. 15-cv-00797-JST (SK)

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10

REARDEN LLC, et al.,

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL

Defendants.
Regarding Docket No. 160

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Defendants move to file under seal the exhibits supporting their Motion for

14

Reconsideration. (Dkt. 161.) Defendants seek to file documentation under seal because Plaintiff

15

previously designated the material as confidential. Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1) requires that the

16

party designating the material as confidential, in this case, the Plaintiff, submit a declaration

17

establishing that all of the designated material is sealable within four days of the filing of the

18

administrative motion. Plaintiff failed to file a declaration in support of the sealing within four

19

days of May 27, 2016.1 Thus, there is currently no justification before this Court to warrant

20

granting the motion to seal. Plaintiff is given an extension of time to provide justification for

21

filing to June 7, 2016. If Plaintiff fails to provide any justification by that date, the Court will

22

deny the motion to file under seal and Defendants may file the documents in the public record.

23

While the burden was on the Plaintiff to justify sealing the materials at issue, the Court

24

disapproves of requests for the wholesale sealing of documents, particularly where the Court has

25

previously denied sealing the same or other versions of the same document. For example, the

26
27
28

1

This is not the first time that Plaintiff has failed to timely file a declaration establishing
the confidential nature of the information submitted by Defendants in an administrative motion to
seal. See Dkt. 97 and 98.

1

Court previously made a determination regarding the redaction of the asset purchase agreement at

2

Docket 71, earlier versions of which are included in the current administrative motion. (Dkt. 71.)

3

The parties are admonished to advise the Court whether or not a specific document or a

4

version of that document has been the subject of a previous motion to seal. Further, the

5

parties should be respectful of third party information that is either privileged or protected,

6

regardless of whose duty it is to seek the sealing of information. For example, it appears that, in

7

this case, the documents that are the subject of this pending motion to file under seal contain bank

8

account information and salary information for third parties.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 3, 2016
______________________________________
SALLIE KIM
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2