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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?