City of Oakland v. SSA Terminals, LLC et al

Filing 153

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-CLAIMANTS' ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL MOTIONS IN LIMINE 7,8 AND 9 AND THEIR EXHIBITS THERETO. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 4/19/13. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8
9

CITY OF OAKLAND, a Municipal
Corporation, Acting By and Through Its Board
of Port Commissioners,
Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant,

10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

12
13

Case No.: 11-01446-YGR
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS/COUNTERCLAIMANTS’ ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
FILE UNDER SEAL MOTIONS IN LIMINE 7, 8,
AND 9 AND THEIR EXHIBITS THERETO

v.
SSA TERMINALS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants-Counterclaimants.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants-Counterclaimants (“SSA”) seek leave of Court to file under seal three motions in
limine and all exhibits thereto. (Dkt. No. 143.) SSA asserts that certain exhibits have been
designated “Attorneys Eyes Only” and that Plaintiff’s counsel stipulated that the motions in limine
should be filed under seal.
The Court has reviewed SSA’s motion, the declaration submitted in support thereof, and the
motions in limine at issue. The Court DENIES SSA’s motion to seal with respect to the motions in
limine themselves. SSA has failed to make a sufficient showing under Civ. L-R 79-5 justifying the
sealing of the entire motions in limine, nor has SSA attempted to narrowly tailor the request to seal as
required by the rule. Moreover, Civ. L.R. 79-5(a) specifically provides that “[a] stipulation, or a
blanket protective order that allows a party to designate documents as sealable, will not suffice to
allow the filing of documents under seal.” SSA is ORDERED to publicly-file motions in limine 7, 8,
and 9 by Monday, April 22, 2013.
The Court will not require that SSA publicly-file the exhibits to the motion to seal at this time.
The Court will address the issue of the exhibits by further order or at the Pretrial Conference.

1

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 143.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

Dated: April 19, 2013
_________________________________________

5

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11

Northern District of California

United States District Court

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

2