Casissa v. First Republic Bank

Filing 130

ORDER REGARDING (127 in 4:09-cv-04129-CW) MOTION AND STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/30/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/30/2012)

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,

ORDER REGARDING
MOTION AND
STIPULATION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 127)

v.

8

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

9

Defendants.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

________________________________/

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

________________________________/
Plaintiffs Frederick J. Casissa and Elizabeth Riggins move to

19

file under seal all of the evidence they offer in connection with

20

their opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by

21

Defendant Bank of America, N.A.

22

are their own declarations, including the exhibits attached

23

thereto, and the declaration of Stephen M. Murphy, including the

24

five depositions excerpts attached thereto.

25

filed a stipulation agreeing that these documents should be filed

26

under seal.

27
28

Docket No. 127.

These documents

The parties have also

Docket No. 127-2.

In Plaintiffs’ declaration in support of the motion seal and
the parties’ stipulation, the parties generally represent that the

1

documents that they seek to file under seal contain non-public

2

personal information of bank customers.

3

Decl. ¶ 3.

4

documents contain such information, or if all documents they seek

5

to seal do.

6

belief” that their declarations and “documents stamped as

7

‘Confidential’ . . . contain privileged and otherwise protected

8

information.”

9

specify why these documents are privileged or otherwise protected.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Stipulation ¶ 2; Shukla

However, the parties do not specify which particular

Plaintiffs also state that they have a “good faith

Shukla Decl. ¶ 3.

However, Plaintiffs do not

Plaintiffs’ filings are connected with a dispositive motion.

11

Thus, to establish that the documents are sealable, Plaintiffs

12

“must overcome a strong presumption of access by showing that

13

‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . .

14

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

15

favoring disclosure.’”

16

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

17

established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

18

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

19

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

20

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

21

file each document under seal.

22

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

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

On the current record, the Court cannot determine whether the

23

documents are sealable.

24

Order, Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental declaration,

25

identifying with particularity the specific reason or reasons that

26

they believe support the sealing of each declaration and each

27

exhibit thereto.

Within three days of the date of this

Plaintiffs shall also specify whether they

28
2

1

believe these reasons support the sealing of each document in its

2

entirety or of a portion thereof.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4
5
6

Dated: 5/30/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

7
8
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