Hamilton v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

Filing 91

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S 86 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION UNDER SEAL, and THE PARTIES' 87 STIPULATION. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/23/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) **DISREGARD DUPLICATE FILING. SEE ORDER, DOCKET NO. 90.**

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

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

20
Civil Local Rule 79-5(c) and (b), to seal portions of their
21
concurrently filed motion for attorneys' fees, expenses and
22
incentive award and the entirety of Exhibit C submitted in support
23
of that motion.

Docket No. 83.

Plaintiffs contended that the

24
items are sealable because they contain information that has been
25
designated as confidential by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., or
26
otherwise contain private or protected information under the
27
September 1, 2010 Stipulated Protective Order.
28

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.

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.

Thus, the

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.

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.

Pending the Court's determination of

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: 3/23/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3