Curry v. Hansen Medical, Inc. et al

Filing 133

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING 127 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ROBERT CURRY, et al.,

5

Plaintiffs,

6

No. C 09-5094 CW
ORDER DENYING
MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL (Docket
No. 127)

v.

7

HANSEN MEDICAL, INC., et al.,

8

Defendants.
________________________________/

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiffs Robert Curry, Kim Prenter, Muthusamy Sivanantham,

11

Jean Cawood, and Gary Cawood move to file under seal portions of

12

their proposed fourth amended complaint (4AC) and corresponding

13

motion for leave to amend.

14

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents

15

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

16

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

17

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

18

be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

19

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

20

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

21

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

22

file each document under seal.

23

document has been designated as confidential by another party,

24

that party must file a declaration establishing that the document

25

is sealable.

26

Pintos v. Pac.
This cannot

See Civil L.R. 79–5(a).

If a

Civil L.R. 79–5(d).

Here, Plaintiffs have filed a declaration from Ex Kano S.

27

Sams II in support of their motion to file under seal.

28

neither the Sams Declaration nor the motion itself specifies the

However,

1

precise reasons why the redacted portions of Plaintiffs’ proposed

2

4AC and their motion for leave to amend are “privileged or

3

protectable as a trade secret or otherwise entitled to protection

4

under the law.”

5

from Plaintiffs’ papers which party is designating the redacted

6

material confidential and on what basis they seek to do so.

7

See Civil L.R. 79–5(a).

Indeed, it is unclear

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file under seal
(Docket No. 127) is DENIED.

9

Plaintiffs shall file unredacted versions of their proposed 4AC

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

and motion for leave to amend in the public record or submit a

11

renewed motion to file these documents under seal.

12

motion to file under seal must identify with particularity why the

13

redacted material is privileged or legally protected, as required

14

by Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Within five days of this order,

Any renewed

16
17
18

Dated: 1/23/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2