Trahan v. U.S. Bank National Association

Filing 172

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 10/29/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

JERRY TRAHAN,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12

No. C 09-03111 JSW

Plaintiff,

ORDER IMPOSING SANCTIONS

v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,

13

Defendant.
/

14
15

On October 14, 2014, Defendant filed an administrative motion to seal Exhibits 47 and

16

48 to Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s motion to decertify the class. As the Court

17

previously stated, Defendant had submitted these exhibits in support of its motion to decertify

18

the class, with an administrative motion to seal. Notwithstanding that fact, Plaintiff, through

19

counsel, filed the documents in the public record when he filed his opposition to the motion to

20

decertify. Accordingly, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause, directing Plaintiff’s counsel

21

to show cause why the Court should not impose monetary sanctions on him. (See Docket No.

22

169.)

23

Plaintiff’s counsel states that he did not believe there was any valid order in place

24

directing that the documents be filed under seal and, therefore, deferred to the presumption of

25

public access. Plaintiff’s counsel also states that “none of the procedures under Local Rule 79-5

26

had been satisfied,” although he fails to explain this in greater detail. Although there was no

27

order in this Court that permitted the documents to be filed under seal, that is because the Court

28

had not yet ruled on Defendant’s motion.

1

Moreover, Northern District Local Rule 79-5(e) expressly sets forth procedures about

2

filing documents under seal that have been designated as confidential by an opposing party, and

3

that rule places the burden on the designating party to show that the documents should be

4

sealed. N.D. Civ. L.R. 79-5(e)(1). Therefore, if Plaintiff, or his counsel, believed that the

5

documents should not be sealed, or that Defendant’s motion to seal suffered from procedural

6

flaws, the proper action to take would have been to oppose Defendant’s original motion.

7

Similarly, when he filed his opposition to the motion to de-certify, Plaintiff, through his

8

counsel, could have filed a motion to seal those exhibits and could have set forth his position

9

that he did not believe the documents should be sealed.
The Court does not find Counsel’s justifications for his actions persuasive.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY IMPOSES sanctions in the amount of $250.00 on Plaintiff’s

12

counsel, Edward J. Wynne. Mr. Wynne shall pay these sanctions to the Clerk of the Court by

13

no later than November 7, 2014.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
Dated: October 29, 2014
16

JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2