Evans et al v. Arizona Cardinals Football Club, LLC et al

Filing 255

ORDER RE 243 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Alsup on 7/26/2017. (whalc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ETOPIA EVANS, et al., 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Plaintiffs, 12 13 14 15 No. C 16-01030 WHA v. ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL ARIZONA CARDINALS FOOTBALL CLUB, LLC, et al., Defendants. / 16 17 On June 27, plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file under seal portions of and 18 exhibits to their opposition brief to defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 243). 19 Since the motion relied primarily on confidentiality designations pursuant to the protective 20 order herein, Civil Local Rule 79-5(e) required any supporting declaration “establishing that all 21 of the designated material is sealable” to be filed by July 3. On June 29, an order granted the 22 parties’ stipulated request to continue that deadline to July 14 (Dkt. No. 246). As of this order, 23 however, no supporting declaration has been filed. Accordingly, the Court rules as follows: 24 DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED RULING 25 Opposition brief (pages 4–5, 13–15) No supporting declaration justifying sealing. DENIED. Exhibit 6 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing. DENIED. Exhibit 7 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing. DENIED. Exhibit 8 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing. DENIED. 26 27 28 1 Exhibit 9 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing. DENIED. Exhibit 10 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing. DENIED. Exhibit 11 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing. DENIED. Exhibit 13 to Sinclair Declaration (pages 129, 308) Plaintiffs seek to seal these pages because “they contain information obtained from documents or testimony that Plaintiffs have marked confidential subject to the Protective Order” (Dkt. No. 243-1 ¶ 4). Under Civil Local Rule 79-5(d)(1)(A), “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.” DENIED. Exhibit 14 to Sinclair Declaration (page 11) Plaintiffs seek to seal this page because “it contains personal identifying information that, while not required to be redacted under the Federal Rules, the parties have nonetheless agreed to redact” (Dkt. No. 2431 ¶ 5). Specifically, plaintiffs seek to redact only line 20 of page 11, which reveals only the home address of a physician deponent (see Dkt. No. 243-20). Compelling reasons warrant sealing of this information due to its irrelevance to the merits and the high visibility of this case. GRANTED. Exhibit 16 to Sinclair Declaration No supporting declaration justifying sealing. DENIED. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiff shall file public versions of the foregoing documents in full compliance with this order by AUGUST 2 AT NOON. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 Dated: July 26, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?