Sleep Science Partners Inc v. Lieberman et al

Filing 154

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING DEFENDANTS 150 MOTION TO SEAL.(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2011)

1
2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5
6

SLEEP SCIENCE PARTNERS, INC., a
California corporation,

7

Plaintiff,

8

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO SEAL
(Docket No. 150)

v.

10

AVERY LIEBERMAN, an individual;
KATRINA WEBSTER, an individual;
DANIEL WEBSTER, an individual;
SLEEPING WELL, LLC,

11

Defendants.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 09-4200 CW

/

12
13

Defendants Katrina Webster, et al.,1 move for leave to file

14

under seal portions of their brief, the Declaration of Gary L.

15

Franklin and various exhibits, all filed in support of their

16

opposition to Plaintiff Sleep Science Partners, Inc.’s motion for

17

leave to file an amended complaint.

18

confidential the sections Defendants ask the Court to seal.

19

Plaintiff has filed a declaration in support of Defendants’ motion

20

to seal.

21

Plaintiff designated as

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents

22

in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under

23

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

24

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

25

established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

Pintos v. Pac.
This cannot be

26
27
1

28

Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Avery Lieberman have
been dismissed. (Docket No. 143.)

1

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

2

is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by a

3

sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to file

4

each document under seal.

5

has been designated as confidential by another party, that party

6

must file a declaration establishing that the document is sealable.

7

Civ. L.R. 79-5(d).

8
9

See Civ. L.R. 79-5(a).

If a document

Plaintiff does not establish good cause to seal the sections
implicated by Defendants’ motion to seal.

Plaintiff states only

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

that the sections “concern the identity” of its vendors.

11

Decl. ¶ 3.

12

information must be sealed.

13

Flick

Plaintiff, however, does not explain why this

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to seal.

14

(Docket No. 150).

15

Defendants shall file unredacted versions of their documents in the

16

public record.

17

Within four days of the date of this Order,

Civ. L.R. 79-5(e).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19

Dated:

5/25/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2