Casissa v. First Republic Bank

Filing 125

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 124 MOTION AND 118 STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

FREDERICK J. CASISSA,

5
6
7

No. C 09-4129 CW

Plaintiff,
v.

8

FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, a division
of MERRILL LYNCH BANK AND TRUST
FSB; and DOES 1-20,

9

Defendants.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION AND
STIPULATION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket Nos. 118
and 124)

________________________________/

11

ELIZABETH RIGGINS,

12
13
14

No. C 09-4130 CW

Plaintiff,
v.

15

FIRST REPUBLIC BANK, a division
of MERRILL LYNCH BANK AND TRUST
FSB; and DOES 1-20,

16

Defendants.

17
18

________________________________/
Defendant Bank of America, N.A., as successor in interest to

19

Merrill Lynch Bank and Trust FSB, moves to file under seal

20

portions of Exhibits A, B, and H, and the entirety of Exhibit I

21

attached to the declaration of Andrew J. Sommer in support of

22

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the claims filed

23

against it by Plaintiffs Frederick J. Casissa and Elizabeth

24

Riggins.

25

in support of its motion to file under seal.

26

also filed a stipulation agreeing that these documents should be

27

filed under seal.

28

Docket No. 124.

Defendant has submitted a declaration

Docket No. 118.

The parties have

1

In the declaration and stipulation, the parties represent

2

that the exhibits, or portions thereof, they seek to file under

3

seal are excerpts of deposition transcripts that contain several

4

types of confidential information.

5

non-public personal information of bank customers.

6

¶ 3; Stipulation ¶ 2.

7

regarding Defendant’s Anti-Money Laundering/Bank Secrecy Act

8

operation, which, if disclosed, would provide the general public

9

insight into how banks detect suspicious activity.

First, the transcripts contain
Sommer Decl.

The excerpts also include information

Sommer Decl.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

¶ 3; Stipulation ¶ 2.

11

investigation into a bank customer, for which the parties agreed

12

to a limited waiver of attorney-client privilege and attorney work

13

product protection regarding Defendant’s response to a grand jury

14

subpoena.

15

Finally, the excerpts concern an

Sommer Decl. ¶ 4; Stipulation ¶ 3.

Defendant’s filings are connected with a dispositive motion.

16

Thus, to establish that the documents are sealable, Defendant

17

“must overcome a strong presumption of access by showing that

18

‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . .

19

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

20

favoring disclosure.’”

21

665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

22

established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

23

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

24

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

25

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

26

file each document under seal.

27
28

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d
This cannot be

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

The parties have provided reasons supporting the sealing of
portions of Exhibits A, B, and H, and the entirety of Exhibit I to
2

1

the Sommer Declaration.

2

parties’ stipulation are GRANTED (Docket Nos. 118 and 124).

3

Within three days of the date of this Order, Defendant shall file

4

these documents under seal, in accordance with General Order 62.

5

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion and the

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7
8

Dated: 5/15/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3