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
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?