Holman v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 103

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken DENYING DEFENDANTS #84 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/20/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4
5

ROANNE HOLMAN; NARCISCO NAVARRO
HERNANDEZ; MIGUEL A. ALVAREZ; and
all others similarly situated,

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Plaintiffs,

No. C 11-0180 CW
ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO FILE UNDER SEAL
(Docket No. 84)

v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/
Defendant Experian Information Solutions, Inc. has filed an

12
administrative motion seeking to file under seal its unredacted
13
memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
14
Certification and Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Michael G.
15
Morgan in support of its Opposition.

The Court notes that

16
Defendant has filed a redacted version of its memorandum in the
17
public docket.

See Docket No. 85.

Defendant represents that the

18
redacted portions of the memorandum discuss Exhibit 4.

Defendant

19
further represents that non-party Finex Group LLC designated
20
Exhibit 4 as confidential.
21
Because the public interest favors filing all court documents
22
in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under
23
seal must demonstrate good cause to do so. Pintos v. Pac.
24
Creditors Ass'n, 565 F.3d 1106, 1115 (9th Cir. 2009). This cannot
25
be established simply by showing that the document is subject to a
26
protective order or by stating in general terms that the material
27
is considered to be confidential, but rather must be supported by
28

1

a sworn declaration demonstrating with particularity the need to

2

file each document under seal. See Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

3

Further, if a party wishes to file a document that has been

4

designated confidential by another party, the submitting party

5

must file and serve an Administrative Motion for a sealing order.

6

Civil Local Rule 79-5(d).

7

adequate notice to the designating party that the submitting party

8

is seeking to file material that the designating party believes is

9

confidential, because within seven days after the administrative

The submitting party must provide

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

motion is filed, the designating party must file a declaration

11

establishing that the information is sealable.

12

designating party does not file its responsive declaration, the

13

document or proposed filing will be made part of the public

14

record.

Id.

If the

Id.

15

On January 9, 2012, this Court directed Defendant to serve

16

Finex, the designating party, with copies of its motion to seal

17

and the Court’s order.

18

that, if party designating the material as confidential fails to

19

file its responsive declaration as required by Local Rule 79-5(d)

20

and that order, the document or proposed filing would be made part

21

of the public record.

22

In the Court’s order, the Court warned

Defendant has submitted proof that, on January 9, 2012, it

23

served Finex with a copy of the motion to seal and of the Court’s

24

order of January 9, 2012.

25

Finex has not filed a declaration in support of Defendant’s motion

26

to seal.

27
28

See Docket Nos. 94 and 95.

However,

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to seal
(Docket No. 84).

Within three days of the date of this Order,
2

1

Defendant may electronically file in the public record its

2

unredacted memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for

3

Class Certification and Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Michael G.

4

Morgan in support of its Opposition, or withdraw them from

5

consideration.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8
9

Dated: 1/20/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3