Kerr v. The City & County of San Francisco et al

Filing 54

ORDER REGARDING 47 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on July 11, 2012. (cwlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

DEREK KERR,

5
6
7

No. C 10-5733 CW

Plaintiff,
v.

8

THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO; MITCHELL H. KATZ;
MIVIC HIROSE; and COLLEEN RILEY,

9

Defendants.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

ORDER REGARDING
MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL (Docket
No. 47)

________________________________/

11

On May 31, 2012, Defendants City and County of San Francisco,

12

Mitchell H. Katz, Mivic Hirose and Colleen Riley filed a motion to

13

file under seal Exhibit A to the second declaration of Jonathan

14

Rolnick in support of their motion for summary judgment.

15

No. 47.

16

Exhibit A as confidential under the protective order in this case.

17

Rolnick Decl. in Supp. of Mot. to Seal ¶ 2.

18

Docket

Defendants represent that Plaintiff has designated

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

19

confidential by another party, the submitting party must file and

20

serve an Administrative Motion for a sealing order. Civil Local

21

Rule 79-5(d).

22

is filed, the designating party must file a declaration

23

establishing that the information is sealable.

24

designating party does not file its responsive declaration, the

25

document or proposed filing will be made part of the public

26

record.

27
28

Within seven days after the administrative motion

Id.

If the

Id.

Because Exhibit A is connected to a dispositive motion, to
establish that it is sealable, Plaintiff “must overcome a strong

1

presumption of access by showing that ‘compelling reasons

2

supported by specific factual findings

3

general history of access and the public policies favoring

4

disclosure.’”

5

(9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

6

simply by showing that the document is subject to a protective

7

order or by stating in general terms that the material is

8

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

9

sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

. . . outweigh the

Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 679

file each document under seal.

This cannot be established

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed a

12

declaration establishing that Exhibit A is sealable.

13

grants Plaintiff seven days from the date of this Order to file

14

such a declaration.

15

be made part of the public record.

16

The Court

If Plaintiff fails to do so, Exhibit A will

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18
19

Dated: July 11, 2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2