Mayer Hoffman McCann, PC v. CAMICO Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 87

ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 78 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/15/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MAYER HOFFMAN MCCANN, P.C., Case No. 15-cv-01207-SI Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 CAMICO MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Re: Dkt. No. 78 Defendant. 12 13 On January 27, 2017, defendant filed an administrative motion to seal documents in 14 connection with defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The motion states that the material at 15 issue was designed as confidential by plaintiff. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e)(1), the 16 designating party − here, plaintiff − was required to file within 4 days “a declaration as required 17 by subsection 79-5(d)(1)(A) establishing that all of the designated material is sealable.” Rule 79- 18 5(d)(1)(A), in turn, provides that motions to seal shall be supported by, 19 20 21 A declaration establishing that the document sought to be filed under seal, or portions thereof, are sealable. Reference to a stipulation or protective order that allows a party to designate certain documents as confidential is not sufficient to establish that a document, or portions thereof, are sealable. . . . On February 10, 2017, plaintiff filed a declaration in support of the administrative motion 22 to seal. Mr. Cutbirth’s declaration states that he agrees that the material should be filed under seal, 23 and that the parties agreed that certain material would be confidential. The Court finds that Mr. 24 25 26 27 28 Cutbirth’s declaration does not comply with Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A), and that plaintiff has not made a “particularized showing” of “good cause” why the material should be filed under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Thus, ‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion. The 1 ‘compelling reasons’ standard is invoked even if the dispositive motion, or its attachments, were 2 previously filed under seal or protective order.”) (internal citation omitted). 3 Accordingly, the Court DENIES defendant’s administrative motion to seal. The denial is 4 without prejudice to plaintiff filing a declaration that complies with Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A) and 5 Kamakana, along with a proposed sealing order, no later than February 17, 2017.1 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: February 15, 2017 10 ______________________________________ SUSAN ILLSTON United States District Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 27 28 The Court also notes that plaintiff’s February 10, 2014 administrative motion to seal and supporting declaration (Dkt. No. 84), as well as defendant’s response to that motion (Dkt. No. 86), suffer from the same defects. The parties may file supplemental declarations in support of that administrative motion to seal by February 17, 2017. 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?