Murray v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. et al

Filing 105

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Denying 101 Electrolux Home Products' Motion for Administrative Relief (cwlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2010)

Murray v. Sears, Roebuck and Co. et al

Doc. 105

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In opposing Plaintiff's motion for relief from the discovery stay in this case, Electrolux filed in the public record a letter which describes a document produced in Thorogood. The letter was v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. and ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants. / MARTIN MURRAY, Plaintiff, No. 09-05744 CW ORDER DENYING ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS' MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

written by Plaintiff's counsel and it challenges the confidential designations of certain material. states, Portions of the document produced in the Thorogood Case as Bates-label no. ELE 269, including a) fax transmission header, b) "5. Drum Front . . . The other issue with this part is whether we need to have this component in stainless. The only time this is visible is when you stick your head inside the drum and look at the drum front," and c) "5. Drum Front . . . Action: . . . Marketing requirement confirmed for this part to be stainless. This should be determined prior to any additional run on this component. The elimination of stainless in this area will have a favorable cost impact." Electrolux did not seek to file the letter under seal. However, In relevant part, the letter

Electrolux did mark confidential the document from which Plaintiff's counsel quoted, ELE 269.

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

In opposing Defendant's motion to stay discovery and strike the class allegations, Plaintiff's counsel quoted from ELE 269 and argued that Electrolux waived any right to confidentiality concerning that document. See Opp. at 3 n.5. Plaintiff's counsel

attached ELE 269 to his own declaration, removed the confidentiality markings, and redacted the entire document except for the language quoted in the above described letter. Electrolux

now moves to place redacted ELE 269 under seal and for an order "requiring [Plaintiff] and his counsel to comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5(d) and the Protective Order Governing Confidential Materials." Motion at 1.

It appears that both Plaintiff's counsel and Electrolux are to blame for the instant dispute. If Electrolux wished to keep the

contents of ELE 269 out of the public record, it should not have filed the letter from Plaintiff's counsel in the public record in the first place; and Plaintiff's counsel should not have taken it upon himself to remove confidentiality markings and file ELE 269 in the public record. If either party wishes to file documents under

seal, it shall follow the rules outlined in Civil Local Rule 79-5. At this juncture, the Court will not place redacted ELE 269 under seal because Electrolux has not followed the proper procedures for requesting that it do so. denied (Docket No. 101). IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 07/22/10 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge Accordingly, Electrolux's motion is

2