In Re Sony PS3 "Other OS" Litigation

Filing 299

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 292 Administrative Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Documents from Docket; denying 296 Administrative Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Documents. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

IN RE SONY PS3 “OTHER OS” LITIGATION

Case No. 10-cv-01811-YGR
ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTIONS TO REMOVE “INCORRECTLY
FILED DOCUMENTS”

8
9

DKT. NO. 292, 296

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

On January 18, 2017, Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (“Sony”)

13

filed an administrative motion to remove an “incorrectly filed” document (Dkt. Nos. 292), seeking

14

to remove from the ECF docket in this matter the document Sony originally filed at Docket No.

15

288, Sony’s response to certain objections to the Motion for Final Approval of Class Action

16
17
18
19

Settlement. On January 19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion (Dkt. No. 296) to
remove “incorrectly filed” documents at Docket Nos. 286 and 286-1. Sony’s motion indicated
that the document it wanted removed from the Court’s electronic docket “contained an incorrect
draft of footnotes 2 and 3.” (Dkt. No. 292 at 2.) Similarly, Plaintiffs’ motion sought to remove
permanently from the docket a response and declaration which “contained a draft of [seven lines]

20
21
22
23
24
25

that require clarification.”
Both parties only sought to do so after an objector requested an opportunity to respond to
what he saw as errors in the parties’ responses to his objection.1 Both parties cited Local Rule 711 and ECF “rules” regarding “Correcting E-Filing Mistakes.” Both parties filed corrected
versions or errata at the same time they filed their motions to remove the prior versions.
The administrative motions to remove these documents are DENIED.

26
27
28

1

See Dkt. No. 289, filed January 17, 2017, and corrected version at Dkt. No. 290, filed
January 18, 2017.

1

Local Rule 7-11 deals only with the procedural rules for administrative relief. It makes no

2

mention of removal of documents from the Court’s docket. The ECF guidance on the Court’s

3

website states specifically that, if a party seeks to file a corrected version, the party should simply

4

file that corrected version on the docket and note that it is a correction of the previously filed

5
6
7
8
9
10

document. It specifically limits the circumstances under which a motion to remove a document is
appropriate, as follows:
If—and only if—your e-filing mistake involves the unintended disclosure of
confidential information, you may file a motion to remove a sensitive e-filed
document. The Court views removing an e-filed document as a drastic measure
or last resort reserved for documents whose contents are confidential. If
confidential information is not involved, simply e-file a corrected version.
See https://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/correctingmistake (emphasis in original).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

A request to remove a document because it needed correction or editing is plainly

12

inappropriate. The parties do not identify any confidential information that was included in the

13

documents they want removed, nor does any appear.

14
15
16
17
18
19

A motion seeking to remove such documents from the Court’s website is contrary to the
Court’s policy of providing the public full access to documents filed with the Court to the greatest
extent possible, as well as a waste of judicial resources. Counsel are cautioned against making
similar motions in the future.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
This terminates Docket Nos. 292 and 296.
Dated: January 31, 2017

20
21
22

______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2