You et al v. Japan et al
Filing
172
ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER SUBJECT TO STATED CONDITIONS by Hon. William Alsup granting 171 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2016)
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
HE NAM YOU and KYUNG SOON KIM, for
themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
No. C 15-03257 WHA
Plaintiffs,
v.
JAPAN; HIROHITO; AKIHITO;
NOBUSUKE KISHI; SHINZO ABE; NYK
LINE (NORTH AMERICA); NIPPON
YUSEN KABUSHIKI KAISHA; NISSAN
MOTOR CO., LTD.; NISSAN NORTH
AMERICA, INC.; TOYOTA MOTOR
CORPORATION; TOYOTA MOTOR
SALES, U.S.A., INC.; HITACHI, LTD.;
HITACHI AMERICA, LTD.; NIPPON
STEEL & SUMITOMO METAL U.S.A.,
INC.; NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO
METAL CORPORATION; MITSUBISHI
CORPORATION (AMERICA); MITSUBISHI
GROUP; MITSUI & CO. (U.S.A.), INC.;
MITSUI & CO. LTD.; OKAMOTO
INDUSTRIES, INC.; SANKEI SHIMBUN,
CO., LTD.; and DOES 1–1000, inclusive,
ORDER APPROVING
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER SUBJECT TO
STATED CONDITIONS
Defendants.
/
24
25
The stipulated protective order submitted by the parties is hereby APPROVED, subject to
26
the following conditions, including adherence to the Ninth Circuit’s strict caution against
27
sealing orders (as set out below):
28
1.
The parties must make a good-faith determination that any
information designated “confidential” truly warrants protection under Rule 26(c)
1
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Designations of material as
2
“confidential” must be narrowly tailored to include only material for which there
3
is good cause. A pattern of over-designation may lead to an order un-designating
4
all or most materials on a wholesale basis.
5
2.
In order to be treated as confidential, any materials filed with the
6
Court must be lodged with a request for filing under seal in compliance with Civil
7
Local Rule 79-5. Please limit your requests for sealing to only those narrowly
8
tailored portions of materials for which good cause to seal exists. Please include
9
all other portions of your materials in the public file and clearly indicate therein
where material has been redacted and sealed. Each filing requires an
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
individualized sealing order; blanket prospective authorizations are no longer
12
allowed by Civil Local Rule 79-5.
13
3.
Chambers copies should include all material — both redacted and
14
unredacted — so that chambers staff does not have to reassemble the whole brief
15
or declaration. Although chambers copies should clearly designate which
16
portions are confidential, chambers copies with confidential materials will be
17
handled like all other chambers copies of materials without special restriction, and
18
will typically be recycled, not shredded.
19
4.
In Kamakana v. Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006),
20
the Ninth Circuit held that more than good cause, indeed, “compelling reasons”
21
are required to seal documents used in dispositive motions, just as compelling
22
reasons would be needed to justify a closure of a courtroom during trial.
23
Otherwise, the Ninth Circuit held, public access to the work of the courts will be
24
unduly compromised. Therefore, no request for a sealing order will be allowed
25
on summary judgment motions (or other dispositive motions) unless the movant
26
first shows a “compelling reason,” a substantially higher standard than “good
27
cause.” This will be true regardless of any stipulation by the parties. Counsel are
28
warned that most summary judgment motions and supporting material should be
2
1
completely open to public view. Only social security numbers, names of
2
juveniles, home addresses and phone numbers, and trade secrets of a compelling
3
nature (like the recipe for Coca Cola, for example) will qualify. If the courtroom
4
would not be closed for the information, nor should any summary judgment
5
proceedings, which are, in effect, a substitute for trial. Motions in limine are also
6
part of the trial and must likewise be laid bare absent compelling reasons. Please
7
comply fully. Noncompliant submissions are liable to be stricken in
8
their entirety.
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
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
12
undesignate information or documents that have been designated as confidential.
13
The party seeking to designate material as confidential has the burden of
14
establishing that the material is entitled to protection.
15
7.
The Court will retain jurisdiction over disputes arising from the
16
proposed and stipulated protective order for only NINETY DAYS after final
17
termination of the action.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
22
Dated: March 1, 2016.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?