Benton v. Clarity Services, Inc.

Filing 78

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 02/12/2018. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2018)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

JOYCE BENTON,
Plaintiff,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

v.
CLARITY SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-06583-MMC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DEFERRING RULING IN PART ON
PLAINTIFF'S ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO SEAL; DIRECTIONS TO
PARTIES
Dkt No. 67

12
13

Before the Court is plaintiff Joyce Benton’s (“Benton”) unopposed Administrative

14

Motion, filed January 23, 2018, to seal, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5, ten documents

15

submitted in connection with Benton’s opposition to defendant Clarity Services, Inc.’s

16

(“Clarity”) motion for summary judgment. In response, Clarity, the party designating the

17

above-referenced documents as confidential, filed, pursuant to said rule, a declaration in

18

support of Benton’s Administrative Motion. See Declaration of David M. Gettings in

19

Support of Plaintiff’s Administrative Motion to Seal (“Gettings Declaration”); Civil L.R. 79-

20

5(e) (providing, where submitting party seeks to file under seal documents designated as

21

confidential by opposing party or non-party, designating party must file declaration

22

establishing such documents are sealable).

23

“A sealing order may issue only upon a request that establishes that the

24

document, or portions thereof, is privileged or protectable as a trade secret or otherwise

25

entitled to protection under the law.” See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). “The request must be

26

narrowly tailored to seek sealing only of sealable material.” See id.

27
28

1

The Court, having reviewed the Gettings Declaration, finds as follows:

2

1. Clarity has shown good cause exists to seal, in their entirety, Exhibits 1-3, 1-4,

3

1-8, 1-9, 1-13, and 1-14 to the Declaration of Christian Schreiber in Support of Plaintiff’s

4

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Schreiber Declaration”).

5
6
7
8

Accordingly, to the extent Benton seeks an order sealing Exhibits 1-3, 1-4, 1-8, 19, 1-13, and 1-14, the motion is hereby GRANTED.
2. Clarity has shown good cause exists to seal the portions of Exhibits 1-10, 1-12,
and 1-15 to the Schreiber Declaration pertaining to product pricing information.
Accordingly, to the extent Benton seeks an order sealing such portions of Exhibits

10

1-10, 1-12, and 1-15, the motion is hereby GRANTED, and Benton is hereby DIRECTED

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

to file in the public record, no later than February 16, 2018, redacted versions of Exhibits

12

1-10, 1-12, and 1-15 as attachments to a separate document titled “Redacted Exhibits to

13

the Declaration of Christian Schreiber in Support of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s

14

Motion for Summary Judgment.”

15

3. Although Clarity’s response does not address Exhibit 3-4 to the Schreiber

16

Declaration, the Court notes said exhibit is an agreement between two entities who are

17

not parties to the instant lawsuit. As the reason for Clarity’s designation of said exhibit is

18

not reflected in the record, the Court hereby DEFERS ruling on the sealing thereof, and

19

Clarity is hereby DIRECTED to serve on each said non-party entity, no later than

20

February 20, 2018, a copy of this Order along with a copy of Exhibit 3-4, and each said

21

entity is hereby afforded leave to file, no later than March 2, 2018, a declaration setting

22

forth any reasons warranting the sealing of said exhibit.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: February 12, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

26
27
28
2