Guitron et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 116

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken Granting 60 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

YESENIA GUITRON; and JUDI KLOSEK,

5
6
7

Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 60)

v.

8

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; WELLS
FARGO & CO.; PAM RUBIO; and DOES
1-20,

9

Defendants.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 10-3461 CW

________________________________/

11
12

Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo & Co. and Pam

13

Rubio seek to file under seal in conjunction with their motion for

14

summary judgment six documents that Plaintiffs Yesenia Guitron and

15

Judi Klosek have designated as confidential pursuant to the terms

16

of the Protective Order in this case (Docket No. 60).

17
Defendants’ filings are connected to a dispositive motion.
18
19

If a document has been designated as confidential by another

20

party, that party must file a declaration establishing that the

21

document is sealable.

22

the documents are sealable, as the designating party, Plaintiffs

23

“must overcome a strong presumption of access by showing that

24

‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . .

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

To establish that

25
outweigh the general history of access and the public policies
26
favoring disclosure.’”

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d

27
28

665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

This cannot be

1

established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

2

protective order or by stating in general terms that the material

3

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

4

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

5

file each document under seal.

6

Civ. Local R. 79-5(a).

Plaintiffs have filed a declaration stating that the

7
documents that Defendants seek to file under seal are Plaintiffs’
8
9

personnel records that include performance reviews and records of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

disciplinary actions taken against Plaintiffs.

11

It further argues that public disclosure would violate Plaintiffs’

12

right to privacy.

13
14

Peretz Decl. ¶ 3.

Plaintiffs have provided sufficient reasons supporting the
sealing of these personnel records.

Accordingly, Defendants’

15
motion for leave to file under seal is GRANTED (Docket No. 60).
16
Within three days of the date of this order, Defendants shall
17
18

electronically file these documents under seal, in accordance with

19

General Order 62.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

Dated: 1/3/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
2