Plascencia et al v. Lending 1st Mortgage et al

Filing 313

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS 306 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5
6

ARMANDO PLASCENCIA; and MELANIA
PLASCENCIA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly
situated,

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 306)

Plaintiffs,

7
8

No. C 07-4485 CW

v.
LENDING 1ST MORTGAGE; LENDING 1ST
MORTGAGE, LLC; EMC MORTGAGE
CORPORATION; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
________________________________/

Plaintiffs Armando and Melania Plascencia move to file under

14
seal their unredacted Reply to Defendant EMC Mortgage
15
16

Corporation’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Second Motion to Amend the

17

Class Certification Order.

18

version of their Memorandum of Points and Authorities in the

19

public record.

20

Plaintiffs state that the materials that they seek to seal have

21

been “designated ‘Confidential’ under the terms of the Stipulated

22

Plaintiffs have filed a redacted

See Docket No. 305.

In their motion to seal,

Protective Order and/or contain information from said materials.”

23
Mot., at 1.
24
25

On December 22, 2011, Defendant EMC filed a declaration in
See Declaration of Susan Miller

26

support of the motion to seal.

27

Overby, Docket No. 288.

28

nonpublic, confidential, and proprietary information about the way

EMC states that these documents “contain

1

in which loan documents used by Lending 1st Mortgage for loans it

2

sold to EMC were prepared and by whom, and refer to confidential

3

Seller’s Guides,” and that “public disclosure of this information

4

would expose EMC’s otherwise nonpublic, confidential, and

5

proprietary practices, and would likely cause harm and prejudice

6

to EMC by placing EMC at a competitive disadvantage.”

Id. at ¶ 4.

7
Because the public interest favors filing all court documents
8
9

in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

Pintos v. Pac.

11

Creditors Ass'n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2009).

12

be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

13

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

14

is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by

This cannot

15
a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to
16
file each document under seal.

See Civil L.R. 79-5(a).

17
18

EMC demonstrated good cause supporting the sealing of the

19

unredacted version of Plaintiff’s reply.

20

motion for leave to file documents under seal is GRANTED (Docket

21

No. 306).

22

may file under seal their unredacted Reply, in accordance with

23

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’

Within four days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs

General Order 62.

24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
27
28

Dated: 12/23/2011

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
2