Cave Consulting Group, Inc. v. OptumInsight, Inc.,

Filing 382

Order by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting in part and denying in part 373 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/4/2019)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

CAVE CONSULTING GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9

v.
OPTUMINSIGHT, INC.,
Defendant.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 15-cv-03424-JCS
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
Re: Dkt. No. 373

Plaintiff Cave Consulting Group, Inc. (“CCGroup”) moves to seal documents related to its

12

motion for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment order. See dkt. 373. CCGroup’s

13

motion is GRANTED as to exhibits 27 and 34 through 39 for the reasons stated in the declaration

14

of Richard Brophy.

15

For the remaining material that CCGroup seeks to seal, CCGroup cites only Defendant

16

OptumInsight, Inc.’s designation of that material as confidential as basis for sealing.

17

OptumInsight did not file a responsive deadline stating reasons for sealing as required by Civil

18

Local Rule 79-5(e)(1). CCGroup’s motion is therefore DENIED as to that material, as well as all

19

proposed redactions in its motion for reconsideration, and CCGroup shall file all such material in

20

the public record no earlier than November 8, 2019 and no later than November 14, 2019. See

21

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(2). If OptumInsight files its own motion to seal any of those documents before

22

November 8, 2019, however, CCGroup shall not file any documents implicated by OptumInsight’s

23

motion until the Court acts on OptumInsight’s motion. If OptumInsight files such a motion, it

24

must include a statement of good cause for OptumInsight’s failure to file a timely responsive

25

declaration.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 4, 2019

______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge