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)

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