Casissa v. First Republic Bank
Filing
141
ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING 131 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS 127 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2012)
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
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?