Plascencia et al v. Lending 1st Mortgage et al

Filing 294

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS 287 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/1/2011)

Download PDF
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ARMANDO PLASCENCIA, et al., 5 6 7 8 9 Plaintiffs, v. LENDING 1ST MORTGAGE, et al., No. C 07-4485 CW ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Docket No. 287) Defendants. ________________________________/ United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Plaintiffs Armando and Melania Plascencia move to file under 12 seal certain documents offered in support of their Motion to Amend 13 the Class Certification Order, including their unredacted 14 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their motion, 15 the Declaration of Michael Quirk, and Exhibits 1 and 2 to the 16 Quirk Declaration, excerpts from the depositions of Janet Gonzalez 17 18 and Mary Haggarty. Plaintiffs have filed a redacted version of 19 their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in the public record. 20 See Docket No. 286. 21 that the materials that they seek to seal have been “designated 22 ‘Confidential’ under the terms of the Stipulated Protective Order 23 and/or contain information from said materials.” In their motion to seal, Plaintiffs state Mot., at 2. 24 On November 15, 2011, Defendant EMC filed a declaration in 25 support of Plaintiffs’ motion to seal as to the unredacted 26 27 Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Exhibits 1 and 2 to the 28 Quirk Declaration. See Declaration of Susan Miller Overby, Docket 1 No. 288. 2 “contain nonpublic, confidential, and proprietary information 3 about the way in which loan documents used by Lending 1st Mortgage 4 for loans it sold to EMC were prepared and by whom, and refer to 5 confidential Seller’s Guides,” and that “public disclosure of this 6 In this declaration, EMC states that these documents information would cause harm and prejudice to EMC by placing EMC 7 at a competitive disadvantage.” Id. at ¶ 4. 8 9 Because the public interest favors filing all court documents United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under 11 seal must demonstrate good cause to do so. 12 Creditors Ass'n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2009). 13 be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a 14 protective order or by stating in general terms that the material Pintos v. Pac. This cannot 15 is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by 16 a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to 17 18 19 file each document under seal. See Civil L.R. 79-5(a). No party or non-party has filed a declaration establishing 20 that the Declaration of Michael Quirk is sealable. 21 Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED to the extent that it pertains to the 22 Quirk Declaration itself. 23 Accordingly, EMC has provided reasons supporting the sealing of the 24 unredacted version of the Memorandum of Points and Authorities and 25 26 Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Quirk Declaration, which Plaintiffs submit 27 in connection with their Motion to Amend the Class Certification 28 Order. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file 2 1 documents under seal is GRANTED to the extent it pertains to these 2 documents. 3 Within four days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs may 4 electronically file the Quirk Declaration in the public record or 5 may withdraw it, and may file under seal the unredacted version of 6 the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of their 7 Motion to Amend the Class Certification Order and Exhibits 1 and 2 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 to the Quirk Declaration, in accordance with General Order 62. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e). IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 14 Dated: 12/1/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 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?