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

Filing 73

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS 60 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 11/22/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/22/2011)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

YESENIA GUITRON; JUDI KLOSEK,

5

Plaintiffs,

6
7
8

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

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

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

9
10

No. C 10-3461 CW

Defendants.
________________________________/

11
12

On November 10, 2011, Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

13

Wells Fargo & Co. and Pam Rubio filed a motion seeking permission

14

to file under seal six documents that Plaintiffs Yesenia Guitron

15

and Judi Klosek have designated as confidential pursuant to the

16

terms of the Protective Order in this case.

17

If a party wishes to file a document that has been designated

18

confidential by another party, the submitting party must file and

19

serve an Administrative Motion for a sealing order. Civil L.R. 79-

20

5(d).

21

designating party that the submitting party is seeking to file

22

material that the designating party believes is confidential,

23

because within seven days after the administrative motion is

24

filed, the designating party must file a declaration establishing

25

that the information is sealable.

26

does not file its responsive declaration, the document or proposed

27

filing will be made part of the public record.

28

The submitting party must provide adequate notice to the

Id.

If the designating party

Id.

1

Defendants’ filings are connected to a dispositive motion.
To establish that the documents are sealable, as the designating

3

party, Plaintiffs “must overcome a strong presumption of access by

4

showing that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual

5

findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the

6

public policies favoring disclosure.’”

7

Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

8

cannot be established simply by showing that the document is

9

subject to a protective order or by stating in general terms that

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

2

the material is considered to be confidential, but rather must be

11

supported by a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity

12

the need to file each document under seal.

13

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors
This

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

Plaintiffs have not filed a declaration in support of

14

Defendants’ motion.

15

this order, as the party designating the material as confidential,

16

Plaintiffs shall file a declaration in support of the motion to

17

seal.

18

sufficient to establish that the documents are sealable in light

19

of Local Rule 79-5 and applicable law.

20

Accordingly, within three days of the date of

The declaration must state with particularity information

If Plaintiffs fail to file their responsive declaration as

21

required by Local Rule 79-5(d), the documents or proposed filings

22

will be made part of the public record.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated: 11/22/2011

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

27
28
2