Holman v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 91

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING PLAINTIFFS #80 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE PUBLICLY THEIR UNREDACTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND DENYING THEIR #83 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/4/2012)

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

No. C 11-0180 CW
ORDER GRANTING
PLAINTIFFS’
ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION TO FILE
PUBLICLY THEIR
UNREDACTED
MEMORANDUM IN
SUPPORT OF THEIR
MOTION FOR CLASS
CERTIFICATION AND
DENYING THEIR
MOTION TO FILE
UNDER SEAL
(Docket Nos. 80
and 83)

Plaintiffs,
v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/

12
13

Plaintiffs Roane Holman, Narcisco Navarro Hernandez and

14

Miguel A. Alvarez have filed motions seeking leave to file under

15

seal their unredacted memorandum in support of their motion for

16

class certification or alternatively to file their unredacted

17

memorandum in the public record.

18

memorandum references exhibits that Defendant Experian Information

19

Solutions, Inc., has designated as confidential.

20

that their class certification motion should be considered a

21

dispositive motion.

22

Plaintiffs represent that the

Plaintiffs argue

Because the public interest favors filing all court documents

23

in the public record, any party seeking to file a document under

24

seal must demonstrate good cause to do so.

25

Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 678 (9th Cir. 2010).

26

filing is connected to a dispositive motion, the party pursuing

27

sealing “must overcome a strong presumption of access by showing

28

that ‘compelling reasons supported by specific factual

Pintos v. Pac.
When the

1

findings . . . outweigh the general history of access and the

2

public policies favoring disclosure.’”

3

omitted).

4

document is subject to a protective order or by stating in general

5

terms that the material is considered to be confidential, but

6

rather must be supported by a sworn declaration demonstrating with

7

particularity the need to file each document under seal.

8

Civil Local Rule 79-5(a).

9

confidential by another party, that party must file a declaration

Id. at 679 (citation

Neither standard can be met simply by showing that the

If a document has been designated as

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

See

establishing that the document is sealable.

11

79-5(d).

12

Civil Local Rule

Defendant has not filed a declaration in support of

13

Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the unredacted memorandum.

14

has also not filed any response or opposition to Plaintiffs’

15

motion to file the memorandum in the public record.

16

Defendant

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to seal the unredacted

17

memorandum is DENIED (Docket No. 83) and Plaintiffs’ motion to

18

file the unredacted memorandum in the public record is GRANTED

19

(Docket No. 80).

20

Plaintiffs shall electronically file their unredacted memorandum

21

in support of their motion for class certification in the public

22

record.

23

Within three days of the date of this Order,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated: 1/4/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

27
28
2