Berrien et al v. New Raintree Resorts International, LLC et al

Filing 69

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Denying 64 DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/7/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
3
4
5
6
7

CURTIS BERRIEN, ROSE HUERTA, TINA
MUSHARBASH, FERN PROSNITZ, MICHAEL
ANDLER, MARCUS BONESS, TIMOTHY
BONNELL, RICHARD BUFORD, ELAINE
CEFOLA, KENNETH DAVIS, JEROME
GAROUTTE, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated,

No. C 10-3125 CW
ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO SEAL
(Docket No. 64)

8
Plaintiffs,
9
v.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

NEW RAINTREE RESORTS INTERNATIONAL,
LLC; RVC MEMBERS, LLC; DOUGLAS Y.
BECH,

12
Defendants.
13

/

14
Plaintiffs Curtis Berrien, et al., move for leave to file
15
under seal portions of their reply brief and the entirety of
16
Exhibit 1 of the Declaration of Elizabeth C. Pritzker, all filed in
17
support of their motion for class certification.

Defendants New

18
Raintree Resorts International, LLC, et al., designated as
19
confidential the information Plaintiffs ask the Court to seal.
20
However, Defendants have not filed a declaration in support of
21
Plaintiffs’ motion to seal.
22
Because the public interest favors filing all court documents
23
in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under
24
seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

Pintos v. Pac.

25
Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

This cannot be

26
established simply by showing that the document is subject to a
27
protective order or by stating in general terms that the material
28

1

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

2

sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to file

3

each document under seal.

4

has been designated as confidential by another party, that party

5

must file a declaration establishing that the document is sealable.

6

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

7

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

If a document

Because Defendants have failed to file a declaration as

8

required by Civil L.R. 79-5(d), Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

9

(Docket No. 64.)

Within four days of the date of this Order,

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Plaintiffs shall file unredacted versions of their documents in the

11

public record.

12

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: 6/7/2011
CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2