Hamilton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 90


Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 MARIKA HAMILTON, MICHAEL HICKMAN, JEFFREY and ELLEN YELLIN, and BRENDAN O'LEARY, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., for itself and as a successor in interest to GOLDEN WEST BANK, WACHOVIA BANK, and WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL / NOWLINE BANK, No. C 09-4152 CW ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNDER SEAL, Docket No. 86, and THE PARTIES' STIPULATION, Docket No. 87 Defendant. ________________________________/ On March 8, 2012, Plaintiffs moved, pursuant to this Court's Civil Local Rule 79-5(c) and (b), to seal portions of their concurrently filed motion for attorneys' fees, expenses and incentive award and the entirety of Exhibit C submitted in support of that motion. Docket No. 83. Plaintiffs contended that the items are sealable because they contain information that has been designated as confidential by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., or otherwise contain private or protected information under the September 1, 2010 Stipulated Protective Order. 1 Defendant Wells Fargo Bank failed to respond in support of 2 Plaintiffs' motion as required under Local Rule 79-5(d). 3 Furthermore, the proposed redactions in the motion for attorneys' 4 fees and the information in Exhibit C, Plaintiffs' expert's 5 report, did not appear to convey confidential business 6 information, proprietary technology or trade secrets. 7 March 19, 2012, the Court denied the motion to seal. 8 9 Thus, on On March 21, 2012, Wells Fargo moved to maintain certain information under seal, noting that it failed to respond to United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Plaintiffs' prior motion due to oversight. 11 to seal is more narrow that Plaintiffs' prior request; it seeks to 12 conceal only direct references to its confidential data, but not 13 Plaintiffs' expert's assessment of the value of the proposed 14 settlement agreement. 15 submitted a stipulation by the parties, agreeing that Plaintiffs' 16 counsel shall file a version of its petition for attorneys' fees 17 and supporting papers with redactions in keeping with Wells 18 Fargo's current request to seal. 19 Wells Fargo's request In support of its motion, Wells Fargo has However, neither party has submitted a copy of the petition 20 and supporting papers with the proposed redactions. Thus, the 21 Court is unable to evaluate whether the redactions comport with 22 the standard for placing the information under seal. 23 may not place information under seal by stipulated agreement or a 24 blanket protective order. The parties 25 Given the impending hearing set for April 26, 2012, the 26 parties shall follow, on an expedited basis, the procedures under 27 this Court's Local Rule 79-5(c) and (d) to establish that sealing 28 is warranted. Plaintiffs shall submit the items required under 2 1 Local Rule 79-5(c)(2)-(5) within one day, pursuant to the 2 procedures therein. 3 Local Rule 79-5(d) within one day thereafter. 4 Wells Fargo shall respond in keeping with The Court will defer ruling on Wells Fargo's request until 5 these items are received. Pending the Court's determination of 6 Wells Fargo's administrative motion, Plaintiffs' counsel need not 7 file an unredacted version of the petition for attorneys' fees on 8 the class website. However, in keeping with In re Mercury Interactive Corp. 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 9 Securities Litigation, 608 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2010), in the event 11 that Plaintiffs' counsel are required to post a version of the 12 attorneys' fee petition disclosing information that was previously 13 redacted from the petition currently posted on the class action 14 website, the April 5, 2012 deadline for class member objections 15 may be vacated and the deadline extended to fourteen days 16 following the date the modified petition is posted on the website. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 20 Dated: CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?