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

Filing 117

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 1/4/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2012)

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 REGARDING
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL

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

The Court has received copies of an administrative motion

13

from Plaintiffs Yesenia Guitron and Judi Klosek seeking to file

14

under seal certain exhibits submitted in support of their

15

opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants

16

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

It does

17
not appear that Plaintiffs have filed a copy of their
18
19
20

administrative motion to seal in the docket of this case.
The Court notes that, in their motion, Plaintiffs state that

21

the documents that they seek to file under seal fall into two

22

categories: (1) Plaintiffs’ personnel files while working for

23

Defendants, including performance documents and personal

24

identifying information for Plaintiffs; and (2) documents that

25
contain sensitive and private information of third parties,
26
including social security numbers, bank account numbers and
27
28

financial information.

However, some of the documents that

1

Plaintiffs seek to seal do not appear to fall into these two

2

listed categories.

3

Wells Fargo Store Manager Incentive Plan and frequently asked

4

questions related to this plan, and Exhibit 43 appears to contain

5

a Wells Fargo Team Member Handbook.

6

For example, Exhibit 38 appears to contain a

Plaintiffs’ filings are connected to a dispositive motion.

7
To establish that the documents are sealable, Plaintiffs “must
8
9

overcome a strong presumption of access by showing that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings . . .

11

outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

12

favoring disclosure.’”

13

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

14

established simply by showing that the document is subject to a

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d
This cannot be

15
protective order or by stating in general terms that the material
16
is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by
17
18

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

19

file each document under seal.

20

document has been designated as confidential by another party,

21

that party must file a declaration establishing that the document

22

is sealable.

23

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

If a

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

Accordingly, if Plaintiffs wish this material to be

24
considered, they must file their administrative motion to seal
25
26

within three days of the date of this Order in compliance with

27

General Order 62.

With their administrative motion to seal,

28

Plaintiffs shall provide a sworn declaration demonstrating with
2

1

particularity the need to file each document under seal and shall

2

identify any exhibits that they seek to file under seal that have

3

been designated as confidential by Defendants.

4
5
6

If Plaintiffs fail to comply with this Order, the Court will
not consider the exhibits that they seek to file under seal in
ruling on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Dated: 1/4/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3