Casissa v. First Republic Bank

Filing 141


Download PDF
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 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (Docket Nos. 127 and 131) ________________________________/ 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 and 19 Defendant Bank of America, N.A. seek leave to file under seal 20 certain documents submitted in connection with Defendant’s motion 21 for summary judgment. 22 2012, the parties have filed supplemental declarations in support 23 of their motions to file under seal. 24 supplemental declarations, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to 25 file under seal and GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs’ 26 motion to file under seal. 27 28 Pursuant to the Court’s orders of June 7, Having considered their Plaintiffs originally sought to file under seal all evidence that they submitted with their opposition to Defendant’s motion. 1 On June 4, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental declaration, 2 limiting the documents that they seek to file under seal to the 3 entirety of Exhibits B and C to the Murphy declaration, portions 4 of Exhibits D and E to the Murphy declaration, paragraphs five 5 through seven of the Casissa declaration, paragraphs three through 6 nine of the Riggins declaration and Exhibit C to the Riggins 7 declaration. 8 exhibits to the Murphy declaration as confidential; these exhibits 9 contain excerpts from the deposition testimony of Edward Plaintiffs state that Defendant has designated the United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Dobranski, David Montez, William J. Fox and Robert Werner, and the 11 exhibits from those depositions. 12 Defendant has designated Exhibit C to the Riggins declaration as 13 confidential. 14 Plaintiffs also state that With its reply in support of its motion for summary judgment, 15 Defendant seeks to file another portion of the Werner deposition 16 under seal. 17 The parties’ filings are connected with a dispositive motion. 18 Thus, to establish that the documents are sealable, they “must 19 overcome a strong presumption of access by showing that 20 ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . . 21 outweigh the general history of access and the public policies 22 favoring disclosure.’” 23 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 24 established simply by showing that the document is subject to a 25 protective order or by stating in general terms that the material 26 is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by 27 a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to 28 file each document under seal. Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d This cannot be Civil Local Rule 79-5(a). 2 If a 1 document has been designated as confidential by another party, 2 that party must file a declaration establishing that the document 3 is sealable. 4 Civil Local Rule 79-5(d). Defendant seeks to seal certain documents that it represents 5 pertain to bank customers identified as Does 1 and 2, including 6 pages 30-32, 36, 37 and 126:25-128:02 of the Werner deposition 7 transcript, Exhibits 7, 8 and 3 to the Werner deposition, 8 paragraphs three through five and Exhibit C of the Riggins 9 declaration, and paragraphs five and six of the Casissa United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 declaration. 11 in these exhibits would reveal the identities of customers who 12 were the subject of a suspicious activity report, which is 13 confidential under federal law. 14 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the parties’ motions to the extent 15 they pertain to these documents. 16 Defendant represents that the information contained Sommer Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4-6. Defendant also requests that certain documents that concern 17 the investigation of events related to a bank customer identified 18 as Doe 3 be filed under seal. 19 97, 98, and 107 from the Dobranski deposition transcript, pages 20 56-73, 76-78, 80-81, 83-89, 91, 102-104, 107-08, 113-14 and 162 of 21 the Werner deposition transcript, Exhibits 14, 16-18, and 23-27 to 22 the Werner deposition, paragraph seven of the Casissa declaration 23 and paragraphs 5-9 of the Riggins declaration. 24 represents that these documents are related to its response to a 25 grand jury subpoena involving Doe 3 and is protected by the 26 attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, for 27 which the parties have agreed to a limited waiver for this 28 litigation. These documents are pages 94, 95, Defendant The Court has previously found similar information to 3 1 be sealable. 2 GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it pertains to these 3 documents. 4 See Docket Nos. 125 and 135. Accordingly, the Court Finally, Defendant seeks to seal certain documents that it 5 states concern confidential aspects of Defendant’s Anti-Money 6 Laundering/Bank Secrecy Act program, because, if disclosed, this 7 information would provide the general public insight into how it 8 detects suspicious activity. 9 of the Fox deposition transcript and pages 42-43 of the Werner These documents include pages 19-21 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 deposition transcript. 11 information to be sealable. 12 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to the extent it 13 pertains to these documents. 14 The Court has previously found similar See Docket Nos. 125 and 135. Plaintiffs withdrew their request to file under seal the 15 other paragraphs of the Casissa and Riggins declarations and the 16 deposition transcript of Daniel Ben-Ora. 17 has filed a declaration in support of the sealing of any portion 18 of the Montez deposition transcript or the portions of the 19 Dobranski, Fox and Werner deposition transcripts not specifically 20 identified above. 21 DENIED to the extent that it seeks to seal these items. Further, neither party Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal is 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 1 Accordingly, the parties’ motions are GRANTED as to the 2 documents specified above, and Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as to 3 the remaining documents (Docket Nos. 127 and 131). 4 days of the date of this Order, the parties shall file the 5 documents specified above under seal, and shall file their 6 remaining documents in the public record. 7 Within four IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Dated: 6/11/2012 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5

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?