Casissa v. First Republic Bank

Filing 136

ORDER REGARDING 127 MOTION AND STIPULATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/7/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

FREDERICK J. CASISSA,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7

No. C 09-4129 CW
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

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. C 09-4130 CW

v.

15

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

16

Defendants.

17

________________________________/

18

On May 24, 2012, Plaintiffs Frederick J. Casissa and

19

Elizabeth Riggins filed a motion to file under seal all of the

20

evidence they offer in connection with their opposition to the

21

motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant Bank of America,

22

N.A.

23

agreeing that these documents should be filed under seal.

24

No. 127-2.

25

documents had been “designated as confidential by one or more

26

parties in the course of this litigation,” but did not state which

27

party had made the designation.

28

Docket No. 127.

The parties have also filed a stipulation
Docket

In their stipulation, the parties stated that the

Id. at ¶ 2.

1

On May 30, 2012, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file a

2

supplemental declaration, demonstrating with particularity the

3

need to file each document or portion thereof under seal.

4

No. 130.

5

Docket

On June 4, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental declaration,

6

limiting the documents that they seek to file under seal to the

7

entirety of Exhibits B and C to the Murphy declaration, portions

8

of Exhibits D and E to the Murphy declaration, paragraphs five

9

through seven of the Casissa declaration, paragraphs three through

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

nine of the Riggins declaration and Exhibit C1 to the Riggins

11

declaration.

12

exhibits to the Murphy declaration as confidential.

13

not state which party designated the information in the remainder

14

of the documents as confidential.

15

Plaintiffs state that Defendant has designated the
Plaintiffs do

Plaintiffs’ filings are connected with a dispositive motion.

16

Thus, to establish that the documents are sealable, the parties

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
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiffs appear to have inadvertently switched the
contents of Exhibits B and C to the Riggins Declaration. In the
chambers copy provided to the Court, Plaintiffs included Riggins’s
termination letter in Exhibit C and an email from Riggins to
Casissa, with an attached news article, in Exhibit B. However, in
the declaration itself, Riggins states that her termination letter
is attached Exhibit B and the email and article are in Exhibit C.
Riggins Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.
When referring to Exhibit C to the Riggins Declaration in
this Order, the Court refers to the document that it appears
Plaintiffs intended to include in Exhibit C, the email from
Riggins to Casissa and the attached article.
2

1

favoring disclosure.’”

2

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

3

established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

4

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

5

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

6

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

7

file each document under seal.

8

document has been designated as confidential by another party,

9

that party must file a declaration establishing that the document

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

is sealable.

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

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

If a

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

In their supplemental declaration, Plaintiffs represent that

12

the documents that they seek to file under seal contain several

13

types of confidential information.

14

documents “concern non-public personal information of bank

15

customers.”

16

include information regarding “aspects of Defendant’s Anti-Money

17

Laundering/Bank Secrecy Act operations.”

18

previously maintained that disclosure of such information would

19

provide the general public insight into how banks detect

20

suspicious activity.

21

investigation into a bank customer, for which the parties agreed

22

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

23

product protection, for the purposes of this litigation, regarding

24

Defendant’s response to a grand jury subpoena.

25

First, they state that these

Shukla Suppl. Decl. ¶ 7.

Second, the documents

Id.

Defendant has

Finally, the documents concern an

Id.

However, Plaintiffs have not identified with particularity

26

the specific reason or reasons that they believe support the

27

sealing of each declaration and exhibit or portion thereof.

28

Plaintiffs do not state to which documents or portions thereof
3

1

each of their proffered reasons for sealing pertain.

2

does not appear that all of the exhibits that they seek to seal

3

are sealable.

4

contains an email between Plaintiffs attaching a news article,

5

apparently published in Bloomberg.

6

Exhibit C in its entirety.

7

provide no compelling reasons that would prevent public disclosure

8

of this news article, in light of the fact that the information in

9

the article is already publicly known.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Further, it

For example, Exhibit C to the Riggins Declaration

Plaintiffs seek to seal

Shukla Suppl. Decl. ¶ 4.

Plaintiffs

The declarations submitted by Plaintiffs and the parties’

11

stipulation are insufficient to support the sealing of these

12

documents at this time.

13

Within one day of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall

14

file a declaration stating which party has designated as

15

confidential the portions of the Casissa declaration, the portions

16

of the Riggins declaration and Exhibit C to the Riggins

17

declaration.

18

designated each document as confidential shall file a declaration

19

setting forth with particularity the reasons that would support

20

the sealing of that document.

21

comply with this Order may result in the filing of these documents

22

in the public record.

23

Within two days of this Order, the party who has

The designating party’s failure to

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated: 6/7/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

27
28
4