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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?