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)

Download PDF
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?